Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Humphrey v. Everett, 10th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views3 pages
    The document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding Lee David Humphrey's petition for habeas corpus. It summarizes that Humphrey was convicted of sexual assault and denied habeas relief in district court. He sought a certificate of appealability from the circuit court on whether the district court violated his due process rights by delaying its decision. However, the circuit court denied the certificate, finding Humphrey failed to make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-8030

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding Lee David Humphrey's petition for habeas corpus. It summarizes that Humphrey was convicted of sexual assault and denied habeas relief in district court. He sought a certificate of appealability from the circuit court on whether the district court violated his due process rights by delaying its decision. However, the circuit court denied the certificate, finding Humphrey failed to make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    11 views3 pages

    Humphrey v. Everett, 10th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding Lee David Humphrey's petition for habeas corpus. It summarizes that Humphrey was convicted of sexual assault and denied habeas relief in district court. He sought a certificate of appealability from the circuit court on whether the district court violated his due process rights by delaying its decision. However, the circuit court denied the certificate, finding Humphrey failed to make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    DEC 20 2002

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    LEE DAVID HUMPHREY,


    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    VANCE EVERETT, Warden of
    the Wyoming State Penitentiary;
    WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL;
    MARK MCKINNA, Warden of
    Crowley County Correctional Facility,

    No. 02-8030
    (D.C. No. 99-CV-119-J)
    (D. Wyo.)

    Respondents-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before BRISCOE , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and


    Circuit Judge.

    HARTZ ,

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

    This order and judgment 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 and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    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.
    Pro se appellant Lee David Humphrey was convicted of two counts of
    second-degree sexual assault of his daughter, and his conviction was affirmed by
    the Wyoming Supreme Court.

    See Humphrey v. State , 962 P.2d 866 (Wyo. 1998).

    He petitioned the district court for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and was
    denied relief. He now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) from this court.
    Mr. Humphrey petitioned the federal district court for habeas relief on the
    following grounds:
    (1)

    erroneous admission of prior bad act evidence;

    (2)

    erroneous admission of expert testimony;

    (3)

    erroneous admission of prejudicial testimony by William D.


    Hansen;

    (4)

    erroneous admission of prejudicial testimony by Marilyn Davis


    Newman;

    (5)

    erroneous admission of prejudicial hearsay testimony;

    (6)

    erroneous admission of prior consistent out-of-court statements;


    and

    (7)

    denial of a fair trial through ineffective assistance of counsel.

    -2-

    In his application for COA, Mr. Humphrey appears to confine himself to


    the issue of whether the federal district court violated his due process rights in
    delaying decision of his habeas petition.

    We grant COA only where there is a substantial showing of denial of


    a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). In other words, the petitioner must
    demonstrate that jurists of reason could debate whether the petition should have
    been resolved in a different manner.

    Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

    Having reviewed the arguments and materials submitted by Mr. Humphrey


    and the district courts decision, we conclude that Mr. Humphrey has failed
    to meet this standard. Accordingly, the application for COA is DENIED and the
    appeal is DISMISSED for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
    Mr. Humphreys motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
    Entered for the Court

    Wade Brorby
    Senior Circuit Judge

    Mr. Humphrey makes passing reference to


    Brady violations by the district
    court, but there is no argument or authority in support of this contention.
    1

    -3-

    You might also like