Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 06-6121
(D.C. No. 05-CV-1318-M )
(W .D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders;
nevertheless, an order may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R.
36.3.
In grounds one and two of his petition, M errell contended that his appellate
counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the following six claims on direct
appeal: lack of jurisdiction; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; improper
references to his post-arrest silence; failure to disclose evidence; denial of a
speedy trial; and denial of his right of confrontation. He also claimed that his
appellate counsels ineffectiveness was cause for his procedural default of these
underlying issues. See Coleman v. Thom pson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991).
2
In ground three of his petition, M errell alleged a due process claim based
on the following asserted trial court errors: prosecutorial misconduct; refusal of a
requested jury instruction on eyewitness identification; and refusal of a requested
jury instruction on hearsay.
-2-
also denied his request for a COA. M errell now seeks a COA from this court,
raising the same claims. 3
In deciding whether to issue a CO A, we limit our examination to a
threshold inquiry into the underlying merit of [the petitioners] claims.
M iller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Our standard of review depends
on whether the district court decided a claim on the merits or dismissed a claim
on procedural grounds. Slack v. M cDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). W here
the district court rejects a constitutional claim on the merits, the substantial
show ing of the denial of a constitutional right required for issuance of a COA
requires the petitioner to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district courts assessment of his claims debatable or w rong. Id. at 484. W here
the district court denied habeas relief on procedural grounds, the petitioner must
show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 1) the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling; and 2) the petition states a valid claim for the
denial of a constitutional right. Id. at 484-85. Here, the district court held that
some of M errells claims were procedurally defaulted, and that the remaining
claims failed to meet the strict standard for relief under 2254.
-6-
By:
Deputy Clerk
-7-