Bedford v. State of Oklahoma, (10th Cir. 2000)
Linked as:
Text
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSTENTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES SYLVESTERBEDFORD,
Petitioner-Appellant,v.No. 99-6301THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA;ROBERT MACY; STEVE HARGETT,
Respondents-Appellees.(D.C. No. 98-CV-709-L)
(W.D. Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)
Before BALDOCK,
In 1996, an Oklahoma state court jury found Petitioner guilty of trafficking acontrolled dangerous substance and possessing a controlled dangerous substance withouta tax stamp. The court sentenced Petitioner to fifteen years imprisonment and one yearimprisonment, respectively. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheldPetitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Bedford v. Oklahoma, No.F-96-1424 (Okla. Crim. App. filed Oct. 27, 1997) (unpublished). Petitioner subsequentlysought post-conviction relief in state district court. The state court denied relief, and theOklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in May 1998. Bedford v. Oklahoma,No.PC-98-254 (Okla. Crim. App. filed May 8, 1998) (unpublished). In June 1998,Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 infederaldistrict court. The district court denied the petition as well as Petitioner's motion for acertificate of appealability.(1) Now beforeus is Petitioner's renewed motion.(2)
In his § 2254 petition, Petitioner argued: (1) he was denied due processbecause(a) he was held in county jail for a year before trial and (b) the state failed to presentcertain evidence to his attorney and investigator, (2) the Oklahoma district court lackedjurisdiction to hear his case, and (3) the police illegally searched and seized his bags froma Greyhound bus. In a thorough report and recommendation, a magistrate judgerecommended denial of the petition. The magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner'sspeedy trial claim was procedurally barred and lacked merit. The magistrate judgefurther concluded that Petitioner's access to evidence claim lacked merit. Finally, themagistrate judge concluded that Petitioner's second and third claims were procedurallybarred and that Petitioner failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamentalmiscarriage of justice. See Coleman v. Thompson,
A petitioner may appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition only "if a circuitjustice orjudge" issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificateofappealability "may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantialshowing of thedenial of a constitutional right." Id. at § 2253(c)(2).
We have thoroughly reviewed Petitioner's application for a certificate ofappealability, his brief, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the districtcourt's order adopting that report and recommendation, and the entire record before us. We conclude that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of aconstitutional right substantially for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's report
and recommendation.(3) Accordingly, wedeny his request for a certificate of appealabilityand dismiss the appeal.(4)
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
FOOTNOTES
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
*. This order and judgment is not bindingprecedent, except under the doctrines oflaw of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors thecitation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited underthe terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**. After examining the briefs and appellaterecord, this panel has determinedunanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oralargument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(A)(2). The case is thereforeordered submitted without oral argument.
1. Although the district court did not act onthe issue of a certificate ofappealability, the certificate of appealability is deemed denied by the district courtpursuant to this court's General Order of October 1, 1996.
2. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), weconstrue Petitioner's notice of appeal as arenewed application for a certificate of appealability.
3. When analyzing Petitioner's access toevidence claim, the magistrate judgeapplied a deferential standard which authorizes habeas relief "only when the state courtshave decided the question by interpreting or applying the relevant precedent in a mannerthat reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable." Mag. R&R at 12, quotingRoberts v. Ward, 1999 WL 162751, at *7 (10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished). The SupremeCourt, however, recently rejected that standard, stating, "Under the 'unreasonableapplication' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifiesthe correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably appliesthat principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Williams v. Taylor, __ U.S. __, __,2000 WL 385369, at *28 (2000). Application of the Williams standard does not affectthe outcome of this case because the state court did not unreasonably apply the governinglegal principles to the facts of Petitioner's case.
4. Petitioner's motion to proceed IFP is mootin light of his full payment of theappellate filing fee.
Sponsored links
