Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gonzales v. Tapia, 10th Cir. (2010)
Gonzales v. Tapia, 10th Cir. (2010)
Clerk of Court
MARTIN GONZALES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
No. 09-2252
(D. New Mexico)
Respondents - Appellees.
Martin Gonzales, a New Mexico state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his application under
28 U.S.C. 2254 for habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (requiring COA to
appeal denial of application). Because Mr. Gonzales has failed to make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required by
2253(c)(2), we deny his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.
I.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Gonzales was convicted by a jury in New Mexico state court of 36
DISCUSSION
A COA will issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
-3-
marks omitted). Thus, a federal court may not issue a habeas writ simply because
it concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision
applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. See id. Rather,
that application must have been unreasonable. Therefore, for those of
Mr. Gonzaless claims that the New Mexico Court of Appeals adjudicated on the
merits, AEDPAs deferential treatment of state court decisions must be
incorporated into our consideration of [his] request for [a] COA. Dockins v.
Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 2004).
In this case the New Mexico Court of Appeals carefully and thoroughly
addressed the issues raised by Mr. Gonzales in this court except for his claim of
excessive bail. We do not consider the bail issue, however, because it was not
raised in federal district court. See Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802,
817 (10th Cir. 2008). And as for the remaining issues, no reasonable jurist could
debate the correctness of the magistrate judges report and recommendation,
which granted appropriate AEDPA deference to the state appellate decision.
There was no need for an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Gonzaless claims.
We add two comments on procedural matters in this case. First,
Mr. Gonzales timely filed his notice of appeal and application for a COA with
respect to the district courts judgment of September 14, 2009. The record shows
that Mr. Gonzaless notice of appeal was received by the district court on
October 14, 2009, within 30 days of the district courts judgment. See Fed. R.
-4-
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days). The district
court, however, filed the pleadings on October 15. As a result, it appeared that
the appeal was untimely, leading to unnecessary confusion and delay. We assume
that the court clerk will be taking steps to prevent the recurrence of such errors.
Second, we note that Mr. Gonzales probably waived his right to appeal the
district courts judgment by not objecting to the magistrate judges
recommendations. See Gardner v. Galetka, 568 F.3d 862, 871 (10th Cir. 2009).
But we need not resolve that question because we have determined on the merits
that Mr. Gonzales is not entitled to relief.
III.
CONCLUSION
We DENY Ms. Gonzaless request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-5-