Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jones v. Archuleta, 10th Cir. (2017)
Jones v. Archuleta, 10th Cir. (2017)
BERNARD JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 16-1398
(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01829-PAB)
LOU ARCHULETA, Warden; THE (D. Colo.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
habeas application.
claims for relief: (1) his federal constitutional rights were violated when the
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
conspiracy count was amended several years after the statute of limitations had
run; (2) his conviction was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because he was
also fined under a controlled substance tax for possession of the drugs that were
ineffective for failing to attack the validity of Petitioners earlier convictions that
formed the basis for his sentencing as a habitual offender; and (5) Petitioner
reasonable investigation in preparation for trial. The district court denied relief
as to all of these claims. Petitioner now seeks to appeal the district courts ruling
as to his first four claims for relief. He does not raise any arguments regarding
the fifth claim raised in his habeas application, and we accordingly will not
appealability.
appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district courts
denial of habeas relief. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). First,
the district court correctly concluded that Petitioners first claim was procedurally
barred because Petitioner did not raise any federal constitutional claims relating
to the amendment of the indictment in the state court proceedings. See Anderson
-2-
v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982) ([Section] 2254 requires a federal habeas
petitioner to provide the state courts with a fair opportunity to apply controlling
legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim. It is not
enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the
state courts, or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made. (citations
Petitioner has not shown the state courts disposition of his double jeopardy
Champion, 992 F.2d 1098, 1100 (10th Cir. 1993) (In a habeas corpus proceeding
under section 2254, a federal court should defer to a state courts interpretation of
state law in determining whether an incident constitutes one or more than one
offense for double jeopardy purposes.). Third, the state court conducted a
evidence did not prejudice Petitioners case, given the other evidence linking
Petitioner to drug sales. We are not persuaded the state court determination was
application of clearly established federal law, and Petitioner accordingly has not
2254(d). Finally, the state court held multiple postconviction hearings at which it
heard testimony from Petitioner, at least one attorney who represented Petitioner
-3-
in an earlier criminal case, and at least two eyewitnesses to the events that gave
rise to Petitioners first criminal conviction. After hearing all of this testimony,
the state court found as a factual matter that even if trial counsel in this case had
challenged the validity of the earlier convictions, these convictions would have
been affirmed. Again, Petitioner has not shown the state courts holding was
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-