FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 6, 2007
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
THURMAN HARVEY HINES,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 07-6134
v. Western District of Oklahoma
MIKE MULLIN, Warden, (D.C. No. 07-CV-196-W)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Thurman Harvey Hines, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) that would allow him to appeal from the district
court’s order denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because we conclude that Mr. Hines has failed to make
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” we deny his request
for a COA, and dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Background
Appellant challenges his convictions in Case No. CF-95-2234 and Case No.
CF-04-7025. In Case No. CF-95-2234, Mr. Hines pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute and to one
count of possession of a controlled dangerous substance without a tax stamp. In
Case No. CF-04-7025, he pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd acts with a child
under sixteen after former conviction of a felony.
Discussion
The denial of a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may be appealed
only if the district court or this Court first issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order
to make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether . . . 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) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the district court denies a habeas
petition on procedural grounds, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at
least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would
-2-
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
We deny Mr. Hines’s request for a COA because, as the district court held,
the one year statute of limitations for an application for a writ of habeas corpus
has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) requires a federal prisoner to file for federal
habeas relief within one year after his conviction becomes final or within one year
after “the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been
discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(4).
In Case No. CF-95-2234, judgment was entered on July 12, 2001. Mr.
Hines had ten days from the date of conviction to withdraw his guilty plea. See
Rule 4.2(A), Rules of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Okla. Stat. tit. 22,
Ch. 18, App. The conviction therefore became final for purposes of the statute of
limitations on July 22, 2001, and the statute of limitations expired on July 22,
2002. In Case No. CF-04-7025, judgment was entered on September 23, 2005.
Again Mr. Hines had ten days to withdraw his plea. He did not move to withdraw
his plea, so the conviction became final for limitations purposes on October 3,
2005; accordingly, the limitations period expired on October 3, 2006. Mr. Hines
did not file this petition challenging both convictions until February 15, 2007.
The petition was therefore untimely, and no reasonable jurist could conclude
otherwise.
-3-
The one-year statute of limitations may be subject to equitable tolling, but
such relief is available only “when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and
demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary
circumstances beyond his control.” Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th
Cir. 2000). Simple excusable neglect is not sufficient. Gibson v. Klinger, 232
F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000).
Mr. Hines offers no sufficient reason for delay. He does allege that he sent
his petition to the district court within the one year statute of limitations, but as
the district court found, he provides no support for this claim. An independent
review of the record reveals no report of any filing by Mr. Hines during that time.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Hines’s request for a COA and DISMISS this
appeal.
Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is also DENIED.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-4-