F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 29, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ANTHONY ALLEN DIAZ,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-4032
v. (D.C. No. 2:03-CV-534-DB)
CLINT FRIEL, Warden, (D. Utah)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER
Before HENRY, McKAY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, a state prisoner, pleads for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of
a child, aggravated kidnaping, and child kidnaping. At sentencing, the trial court
recognized that the kidnaping charges were “in the alternative” and consequently
merged Petitioner’s aggravated kidnaping conviction into his conviction for
aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The court then offered the state the choice
between sentencing Petitioner for aggravated sexual abuse of a child or child
kidnaping. The state chose child kidnaping and the court sentenced Petitioner to
fifteen years to life. Petitioner then appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals,
objecting to (1) merging the convictions, and (2) allowing the state to choose the
sentencing crime. He also claimed insufficient evidence to support a conviction
and ineffective trial counsel. The court of appeals upheld the conviction.
Petitioner now requests federal habeas corpus relief, asserting some of the
same claims and a host of new ones, mostly concerning the insufficiency of the
evidence and trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. The district court, in a lengthy
order, found that several of Petitioner’s claims of constitutional violations–that
his due process rights were violated by the merger analysis, insufficiency of the
evidence, and failure of his counsel to suppress a photo lineup–were unexhausted
federal constitutional issues. Order, 6 (D. Utah Dec. 16, 2004). In addition, the
district court found that various other claims had been procedurally defaulted. Id.
at 10. However, the district court did consider Petitioner’s claim that “his child
kidnaping conviction is unsupported by the evidence, specifically because he
never meant to ‘keep or conceal’ the victim.” Id. at 12. In response, the court
stated that Petitioner “has suggested nothing whatsoever in the evidence to put in
question the jury’s reasoned consideration of the testimony it heard. He has
merely invited this Court to take an impermissible fresh look at the evidence.” Id.
at 13.
The district court also considered, in great detail, Petitioner’s six
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 14-27. The court found
that “Petitioner has neither argued nor shown that the Utah Court of Appeals
-2-
unreasonably applied Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)] and its
progeny and/or made unreasonable factual determinations.” Id. at 16. The court
was unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument and found that he had “failed to show
the prejudice required to prevail on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”
Id. at 27.
Petitioner now seeks from this court a certificate of appealability. The
issues he raises on appeal are identical to those brought before the district court.
To grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (1994).
To meet this burden, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000) (quotation omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the briefs of Petitioner and Respondent, the
district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the
record on appeal, or Petitioner’s filing raises an issue which meets our standard
for the grant of a certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons
set forth by the district court in its Order of December 16, 2005, we cannot say
“that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
-3-
petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” Id.
We GRANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but we
DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the
appeal.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-