FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 14, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
ERICK THURMAN,
Petitioner–Appellant, No. 13-5015
v. (D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00070-TCK-TLW)
TERRY MARTIN, Warden, (N.D. Okla.)
Respondent–Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
Before LUCERO, McKAY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability to
appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. Petitioner entered a blind
plea of guilty to a charge of assault and battery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced
to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to withdraw
his plea of guilty. After the trial court conducted a hearing, it denied Petitioner’s motion.
Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals, which was denied, and an application for post-conviction relief in the trial court,
which was also denied. The OCCA affirmed the trial court’s denial of post-conviction
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
relief. Petitioner then filed the instant § 2254 habeas petition.
In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner raised three grounds of error, each of
which had been presented and rejected in the state court proceedings. Petitioner argued:
(1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) his plea of guilty was not voluntary,
knowing, and intelligent; and (3) he received an excessive sentence. The district court
concluded the state court had not unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in
rejecting these claims, and accordingly denied the petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(1).
After thoroughly reviewing the record and Petitioner’s filings on appeal, we
conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of habeas
relief. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, for substantially
the same reasons given by the district court and the state court, we DENY Petitioner’s
request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-2-