FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 9, 2011
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
SHAWN MANDEL WINKLER,
Petitioner–Appellant,
v. No. 10-1554
(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-02124-ZLW)
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, (D. Colo.)
Executive Director, Colorado
Department of Corrections; THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents–Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. In 1994, Petitioner pled guilty to
one count of second-degree burglary and was sentenced to twenty years in prison
plus five years of parole. He did not file a direct appeal, and there were no
pending motions in the state court until Petitioner filed a Rule 35(c) motion in
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
August 2009. In 2010, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition which the
district court dismissed as untimely based on the one-year limitation period set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
In his opening brief and application for a certificate of appealability,
Petitioner argues the district court erred in denying his petition because he
suffered substantial violations of his constitutional rights and because the facts
underlying his claim of breach of the plea agreement did not occur until years
after his sentencing when the state retroactively applied new laws regarding
parole and earned-time credits to keep him incarcerated after he should have been
eligible for parole. After carefully reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record
on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the
district court erred in dismissing the petition as untimely. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A habeas petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling
simply because he alleges his constitutional rights were violated during his trial
or sentencing. See Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000). As for
Petitioner’s claim regarding the alleged breach of the plea agreement, Petitioner
asserts he was eligible for parole by November 13, 2000, and the state failed to
honor its obligation to release him from incarceration at this point. Thus, even if
we agree with Petitioner that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until
he learned that the government did not intend to honor the agreement, the
limitations period had clearly expired well before Petitioner filed his petition
-2-
complaining of this breach. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) (providing that the
one-year limitation period shall run from the latest of, inter alia, “the date on
which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been
discovered through the exercise of due diligence”).
We therefore DENY the application for a certificate of appealability and
DISMISS the appeal. We GRANT Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. All other pending motions are DENIED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-