Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
DEC 16 1998
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROOSEVELT BROWN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT D. HANNIGAN and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
KANSAS,
No. 98-3043
(D.C. No. 96-CV-3267)
(D. Kan.)
Respondents-Appellees.
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
appeal can be taken from the denial of a 2254 habeas petition unless the
petitioner first obtains a certificate of appealability).
Petitioner was convicted in Kansas in 1993 for criminal trespass,
aggravated kidnaping and rape. On direct appeal, petitioners criminal trespass
conviction was reversed, but his kidnaping and rape convictions were affirmed.
The Kansas Supreme Court denied review, after which petitioner filed this 2254
petition. His petition claims that he was denied due process when the trial court
allowed the jury to hear a partial rereading of petitioners and the victims
testimony. Petitioner argues the rereading of testimony was not responsive to the
jurys request. Petitioner also claims that he was denied due process when the
trial court admitted evidence of a love letter he wrote to the victim while he was
awaiting trial. He claims that the letter was irrelevant and was improperly
introduced to show that he was trying to manipulate the victim.
The district court denied the petition, finding that the alleged errors did not
have a substantial and injurious effect on the jurys verdict. In a subsequent
order, the district court denied petitioners request for a certificate of
appealability.
-2-
U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993). We also agree with the district court that the admission
of the love letter did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jurys
verdict.
Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the district courts
order denying petitioners habeas corpus petition is not debatable, reasonably
subject to a different outcome on appeal, or otherwise deserving of further
proceedings. See Gallagher v. Hannigan , 24 F.3d 68, 68 (10th Cir. 1994)
(discussing how to make substantial showing of denial of constitutional right).
Thus, we find that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right and that the district court properly denied petitioners
application for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we DENY petitioners
-3-
request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. The mandate
shall issue forthwith.
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-4-