Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    20 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Joe T. Bell's application for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Bell raised fourteen claims in his habeas petition relating to ineffective assistance of counsel, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and other trial issues. Both the magistrate judge and district court provided thorough consideration of each claim and denied the petition. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts' analysis and found that reasonable jurists would not debate the denial of Bell's constitutional claims. Therefore, Bell's application for a certificate of appealability was denied and his appeal was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-03-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6330

    Original Title

    Bell v. Kaiser, 10th Cir. (2001)

    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 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Joe T. Bell's application for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Bell raised fourteen claims in his habeas petition relating to ineffective assistance of counsel, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and other trial issues. Both the magistrate judge and district court provided thorough consideration of each claim and denied the petition. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts' analysis and found that reasonable jurists would not debate the denial of Bell's constitutional claims. Therefore, Bell's application for a certificate of appealability was denied and his appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    20 views4 pages

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Joe T. Bell's application for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Bell raised fourteen claims in his habeas petition relating to ineffective assistance of counsel, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and other trial issues. Both the magistrate judge and district court provided thorough consideration of each claim and denied the petition. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts' analysis and found that reasonable jurists would not debate the denial of Bell's constitutional claims. Therefore, Bell's application for a certificate of appealability was denied and his appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    MAR 22 2001

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    JOE T. BELL,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    STEPHEN W. KAISER;
    DREW EDMONDSON; STATE
    OF OKLAHOMA,

    No. 00-6330
    (D.C. No. 99-CV-1146-R)
    (W.D. Okla.)

    Respondents-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before EBEL , PORFILIO , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

    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 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.

    Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to proceed with his


    appeal from the district courts denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
    In order to obtain a COA, petitioner must make a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right.

    See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). To do so, he must

    demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district courts assessment
    of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel , 120 S. Ct.

    1595, 1604 (2000).


    Petitioner raised fourteen issues in his federal habeas petition: (1) error
    by the trial court in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication;
    (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to certain jury
    instructions; (3) failure of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
    petitioner did not act in self defense because there were no eye witnesses to the
    altercation; (4) failure to prove that the candy dish was the weapon used (because
    there were no fingerprints, DNA blood evidence or forensic reports); (5) failure
    by the state to disclose that there were no fingerprints, DNA blood evidence,
    forensic reports or expert medical examiners reports; (6) insufficient evidence to
    support the conviction (lack of fingerprints and victims blood on the dangerous
    weapon); (7) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the
    states evidence and failing to seek a dismissal on the ground that the state failed
    to prove the candy dish was the weapon used; (8) ineffective assistance of trial
    -2-

    counsel for failing to impeach the victim with her prior conviction; (9) ineffective
    assistance of trial counsel for failing to contact character witnesses;
    (10) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise trial counsels
    ineffectiveness; (11) violation of petitioners Fourteenth Amendment rights
    because he was not permitted to take part in the jury selection process;
    (12) coercion of the jury by the trial judge and the state; (13) vindictive
    prosecution in retaliation for petitioners lawsuits against the Oklahoma county
    sheriff; and (14) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to seek a change
    of venue.
    The magistrate judge carefully considered each claim. After reviewing the
    magistrate judges report and recommendation de novo and considering
    petitioners objections, the district court adopted the report and recommendation
    and denied the petition. We agree with the thorough and well reasoned
    consideration of petitioners claims by both the magistrate judge and district
    judge, making duplication of that analysis unnecessary. Because we have
    determined that reasonable jurists would find the district courts assessment of
    petitioners constitutional claims neither debatable nor wrong, we conclude
    that petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of
    a constitutional right for substantially the reasons set forth in the magistrate

    -3-

    judges recommendation of August 21, 2000, and the district courts order of
    September 21, 2000.
    The application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and the appeal
    is DISMISSED. The motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is
    GRANTED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    Entered for the Court

    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge

    -4-

    You might also like