FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT May 26, 2011
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
STEVEN MARK ST. JAMES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 11-1091
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS; JOHN W. (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01174-PAB)
SUTHERS, Attorney General of the State (D. Colo.)
of Colorado,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
Before LUCERO, EBEL and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Steven Mark St. James, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his application for a writ
of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument.
U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253(a), for the same reasons set forth by the district court we deny a
COA and dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
After a jury trial, St. James was convicted in Colorado of sexual exploitation of a
child and sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust. The trial court
imposed a sentence of twenty-four years’ imprisonment for the sexual exploitation of a
child conviction and twelve years’ imprisonment for the sexual assault conviction, to be
served consecutively. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed St. James’s convictions
on direct appeal. People v. St. James, 75 P.3d 1122 (Colo. App. 2002). Then, the
Colorado Supreme Court denied St. James’s request for certiorari. St. James v. People,
No. 03SC127, 2003 WL 21999450, at *1 (Colo. 2003).
In his federal habeas application, St. James argues that he was prejudiced at trial
when the court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence that suggested his prior
misconduct.1 The district court carefully considered and rejected that argument, denying
the § 2254 motion and denying a COA. On appeal, St. James reasserts that argument.
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits
of St. James’s appeal unless he first obtains a COA. To obtain a COA, St. James must
1
In his original habeas application, St. James asserted four claims, but eventually he
agreed to dismiss three of those claims. St. James also subsequently added two additional
claims, but the district court dismissed those claims as procedurally barred. St. James
only raises one claim on appeal, and so we will limit our review to that claim.
2
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). A petitioner can accomplish this task by establishing 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, 483–84 (2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that St. James failed to meet the Slack standard. We agree with the
district court that St. James failed to show that the admission of evidence that suggested
his prior misconduct violated a constitutional right. Therefore, we remain unconvinced
that reasonable jurists could debate that St. James’s § 2254 motion should have been
resolved differently.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
3