Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ochoa v. Jordan, 10th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denying Vincent Todd Ochoa's application for a certificate of appealability following his conviction for first degree murder. The order discusses that Ochoa was convicted by an Oklahoma jury and sentenced to life without parole. After exhausting state remedies, he filed a federal habeas corpus petition that was denied by the district court. The appellate court considers the issues Ochoa raises on appeal and determines that he has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a certificate of appealability under the applicable legal standards. Therefore, the court denies his application and dismisses the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-06-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6189

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denying Vincent Todd Ochoa's application for a certificate of appealability following his conviction for first degree murder. The order discusses that Ochoa was convicted by an Oklahoma jury and sentenced to life without parole. After exhausting state remedies, he filed a federal habeas corpus petition that was denied by the district court. The appellate court considers the issues Ochoa raises on appeal and determines that he has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a certificate of appealability under the applicable legal standards. Therefore, the court denies his application and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Ochoa v. Jordan, 10th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denying Vincent Todd Ochoa's application for a certificate of appealability following his conviction for first degree murder. The order discusses that Ochoa was convicted by an Oklahoma jury and sentenced to life without parole. After exhausting state remedies, he filed a federal habeas corpus petition that was denied by the district court. The appellate court considers the issues Ochoa raises on appeal and determines that he has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a certificate of appealability under the applicable legal standards. Therefore, the court denies his application and dismisses the appeal.

    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


    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
    FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT

    June 5, 2007
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    V IN CEN T TO D D O CH O A ,
    Petitioner-A ppellant,
    v.
    LEN O RA JO RD A N ,

    No. 06-6189
    (D.C. No. CIV-05-154-R)
    (W .D. Okla.)

    Respondent-Appellee.

    OR DER DENY ING CERTIFICATE O F APPEALABILITY *

    Before TA CH A, Chief Judge, KELLY and OBRIEN, Circuit Judges.

    An Oklahoma jury convicted Vincent Todd Ochoa of first degree murder


    and he was sentenced to life without parole. After exhausting his state remedies
    on direct appeal and through post-conviction proceedings, he brought this
    28 U .S.C . 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. H e
    now appeals the district courts denial of his petition.

    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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
    with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

    In order to proceed on appeal, M r. Ochoa requires a certificate of


    appealability (COA). Id. 2253(c). In support of his application for a COA, he
    raises the follow ing issues:
    (1) the trial court admitted and/or failed to redact a videotaped police
    interrogation in violation of Petitioners Fifth and Fourteenth
    Amendment rights.
    (2) the trial court admitted prejudicial and inflammatory photographs
    in violation of Petitioners Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
    rights.
    (3) the admission of other crimes evidence violated Petitioners Sixth
    and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
    (4) the admission of improper opinion testimony violated Petitioners
    Fourteenth Amendment rights;
    (5) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct
    appeal issues of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and failing to
    request an evidentiary hearing; and
    (6) cumulative error by trial counsel denied him the right to effective
    assistance of counsel and deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial.
    Application for Cert. of Appealability, at 1A.
    W e may grant M r. Ochoa a COA only if he has made a substantial
    showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Id. 2253(c)(2). This standard
    requires a demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could
    debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
    resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
    deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. M cDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
    484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Upon careful consideration of M r. Ochoas application for COA, his brief
    on appeal, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude, for substantially the
    -2-

    same reasons stated in the district courts order of M ay 24, 2006, and the
    magistrate judges report and recommendation of M arch 31, 2006, that M r. Ochoa
    has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a COA under the applicable standards.
    W e therefore DENY his application for a COA and DISM ISS this appeal.
    M r. Ochoas motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted. All other
    pending motions are denied.

    Entered for the Court


    ELISABETH A. SHUM AKER, Clerk

    By:
    Deputy Clerk

    -3-

    You might also like