Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
NOV 29 2001
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 01-5073
(D.C. No. 00-CV-570-K)
(N.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
After examining the petitioners brief and the appellate record, this panel
has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
(holding that when a conviction became final before AEDPAs effective date of
April 24, 1996, a petitioner has one year after AEDPAs enactment to file a
2254 petition).
Mr. Hickmon filed his federal habeas petition on July 12, 2000, after the
AEDPA limitations period had expired. The district court held that Mr.
Hickmons federal habeas petition was time barred and that equitable tolling was
not warranted. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the habeas petition and
denied a COA for appeal.
-2-
In seeking a COA from this court, Mr. Hickmon argues that his federal
habeas petition should be considered on the merits because (1) the limitations
period was tolled by his post-conviction motions filed in the state court, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2) (AEDPA time limitation period tolled during pendency
of properly filed state post-conviction motion), (2) he is entitled to equitable
tolling based on his actual innocence and his diligence in pursuing his remedies,
and (3) the holding of Hogan v. Gibson , 197 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 1999),
cert. denied , 531 U.S. 940 (2000), should be applied to him, which would entitle
him to a new trial. He maintains that until
1998). For his actual-innocence claim, Mr. Hickmon states that if one Chris
Brown had been interviewed, he or she would have corroborated his alibi, thereby
strengthening his trial testimony.
See
Stafford v. Saffle , 34 F.3d 1557, 1561-62 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding corroborative
or speculative evidence insufficient to meet high threshold for actual innocence in
evaluating whether actual-innocence claim warranted leave to amend habeas
petition). Accordingly, Mr. Hickmon is not entitled to equitable tolling on this
ground.
Mr. Hickmon also contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because
he diligently pursued his remedies, but could not have filed his federal habeas
petition sooner because he did not understand the legal significance of his
actual-innocence claim until he discussed it with another inmate shortly before he
Mr. Hickmon has not developed his actual-innocence claim on appeal. A
review of his habeas petition reveals his alibi-witness argument as the only one
supporting his claim that he did not commit the crime. In the habeas petition, he
also complains about trial errors, but these argue only legal innocence, which is
insufficient. See Klein v. Neal , 45 F.3d 1395, 1400 (10th Cir. 1995).
-4-
(10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1195 (2001). Simple excusable neglect
is not sufficient.
Marsh , 223
F.3d at 1220. The inability to hire an attorney also will not excuse an untimely
habeas petition because there is no right to counsel in habeas proceedings.
Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 756-57 (1991) (no right to counsel beyond
first criminal appeal as of right).
Mr. Hickmon has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances
beyond his control prevented him from filing his federal habeas action during the
four years following the affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal. It is
apparent that Mr. [Hickmon] simply did not know about the limitation in the
AEDPA until it was too late.
Hogan is not
Cf. Romero v. Furlong , 215 F.3d 1107, 1111 (10th Cir.) (declining to address
complex procedural bar issues because case more easily decided on merits),
cert. denied , 531 U.S. 982 (2000). Therefore, announcement of
extend Mr. Hickmons limitations period for filing a federal habeas petition.
We agree with the district courts conclusions that Mr. Hickmons petition
was untimely and that his pleadings, which we construe liberally pursuant to
Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), provide no basis for equitable
tolling. Accordingly, the district courts procedural ruling was correct, and we
need not examine the underlying constitutional claims. Slack, 529 U.S. at 485.
After Mr. Hickmon filed his appellate brief, he submitted a Motion for
Leave to File Supplemental Ground, together with Appellants Supplemental
Ground, in which he requests that the holding of
254 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2001), be applied to him.
-7-