Filed: Oct. 30, 2000
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2000 TENTH CIRCUIT _ PATRICK FISHER Clerk WILLIE T. HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 00-1088 (D. Colo.) JUANITA NOVAK; ATTORNEY GENERAL (D.Ct. No. 99-Z-2154) FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents-Appellees. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materia
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2000 TENTH CIRCUIT _ PATRICK FISHER Clerk WILLIE T. HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 00-1088 (D. Colo.) JUANITA NOVAK; ATTORNEY GENERAL (D.Ct. No. 99-Z-2154) FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents-Appellees. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not material..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 30 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WILLIE T. HAYES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 00-1088
(D. Colo.)
JUANITA NOVAK; ATTORNEY GENERAL (D.Ct. No. 99-Z-2154)
FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents-Appellees.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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.
Appellant Willie T. Hayes, a state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the
district court’s decision denying his federal habeas corpus petition filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a certificate of appealability. We exercise our
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), deny Mr. Hayes’ request for a certificate
of appealability, and dismiss his appeal.
The entire underlying procedural disposition of Mr. Hayes’ state litigation
is provided in detail in the district court’s decision. In short, after pleading guilty
and receiving his sentence, Mr. Hayes successfully petitioned the state trial court
to reduce his sentence because it applied the wrong sentencing range of four-to-
sixteen years in calculating his sentence, rather than the correct range of four-to-
twelve years. In applying the correct sentencing range, the trial court reduced Mr.
Hayes thirteen-year sentence to twelve years. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hayes
brought a motion under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c), seeking to
withdraw his guilty plea as involuntary based on an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. Mr. Hayes claimed his attorney acted ineffectively by failing to
advise him of the correct sentencing range. Following a hearing on the motion,
the state trial court denied Mr. Hayes’ motion, finding he testified the difference
in the sentencing range would not have made a difference in his pleading guilty.
-2-
Mr. Hayes appealed the state trial court’s decision to the Colorado Court of
Appeals, raising the same issue. The Colorado Court of Appeals considered his
claim on its merits, determining his counsel did not act ineffectively. The
Colorado Supreme Court denied Mr. Hayes’ writ of certiorari. Later, the state
district court denied Mr. Hayes’ post-conviction habeas petition as insufficient on
its face, which the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.
Unsuccessful at the state level, Mr. Hayes filed his federal habeas petition,
claiming his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary due to his illegal
sentence. The district court assigned the matter to a magistrate judge who issued
an Order to Show Cause, finding Mr. Hayes never raised this issue before the
Colorado Court of Appeals, 1 and therefore, concluding Mr. Hayes failed to
exhaust his state remedies as required under § 2254.
Mr. Hayes filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, contending he
exhausted the illegal sentencing issue because he raised it in his Rule 35(c)
motion. Following a review of Mr. Hayes’ response to magistrate judge’s show
1
While the magistrate judge at one point states Mr. Hayes did not raise the illegal
sentencing issue in “the state courts,” we acknowledge Mr. Hayes did raise the illegal
sentencing range issue in his Rule 35(c) motion, albeit in the guise of an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim.
-3-
cause order, the district court denied his petition, also holding Mr. Hayes failed to
show he exhausted his state remedies.
On appeal, Mr. Hayes raises the same issue regarding his unknowing and
involuntary plea premised on his illegal sentence, which the magistrate judge and
district court determined he failed to exhaust. Mr. Hayes claims the federal
district court ignored evidence showing he did in fact exhaust his remedies in the
state courts. In support, Mr. Hayes points out he raised the illegal sentence issue
in his Rule 35(c) motion when he claimed his counsel failed to advise him of the
correct sentencing range.
In order to obtain a certificate of appealability, Mr. Hayes must make a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). Because the district court denied Mr. Hayes’ habeas petition on
procedural grounds without reaching his underlying constitutional claims, we will
only issue a certificate of appealability if Mr. Hayes can show, at the least, that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 1) Mr. Hayes stated a valid claim
of the denial of a constitutional right and 2) the district court’s procedural ruling
was correct. See Slack v. McDaniel, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000).
We review the legal basis for the district court’s denial of Mr. Hayes’ § 2254
-4-
petition de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. See
Rogers v. Gibson, 173 F.3d 1278, 1282 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied,
120 S. Ct.
944 (2000). As a pro se litigant, Mr. Hayes’ pleadings must be construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Riddle v. Mondragon,
83 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 1996).
In determining whether we should issue a certificate of appealability, we
hold in this case Mr. Hayes raises a debatable question as to whether the district
court’s procedural ruling was correct. Thus, we begin with a discussion of the
district court’s procedural ruling on Mr. Hayes’ failure to exhaust his state
remedies. Mr. Hayes’ petition may be considered if he shows he exhausted his
state remedies or that no adequate state remedies are available. Cf. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied only if Mr. Hayes presented
his federal claims to the highest state court, either by direct review or post-
conviction attack. See Dever v. Kansas State Penitentiary, 36 F.3d 1531, 1354
(10th Cir. 1994).
The record shows Mr. Hayes raised an involuntary guilty plea issue in his
35(c) motion based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to
advise him of the correct sentencing range. The Colorado Court of Appeals
-5-
addressed this issue on its merits, determining Mr. Hayes’ counsel did not act
ineffectively. Thus, it is clear Mr. Hayes raised the ineffective assistance of
counsel claim in both his 35(c) motion and on state appeal. However, in his
federal petition, Mr. Hayes did not explicitly set forth an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. Instead, he claimed only that his plea was unknowing and
involuntary due to his illegal sentence. On appeal, he suggests he exhausted his
state remedies and in support, quotes excerpts from all of his state pleadings in
which he claimed his involuntary plea resulted from his counsel’s actions in
advising him and the court of the wrong sentencing range.
Construing Mr. Hayes’ federal petition liberally, it is conceivable he
implicitly raised the same ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his federal
petition when he again claimed his plea was involuntary and unknowing based on
application of the incorrect sentencing range. We arrive at this conclusion
because, in the state proceedings, Mr. Hayes maintained his involuntary plea
resulted from his attorney’s actions in advising him of the wrong sentence range.
Therefore, in this case, the fact Mr. Hayes left out any mention of counsel is not
necessarily fatal. Hence, we disagree with the district court and conclude Mr.
Hayes did exhaust his state remedies on his ineffective assistance of counsel
claim and subsequently brought the same claim in his federal petition.
-6-
Having determined Mr. Hayes exhausted his state remedies, we must next
determine whether jurists of reasons would find it debatable whether Mr. Hayes
has stated a valid claim of a constitutional right concerning his ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. See Slack, ___ U.S. at ___, 120 S. Ct. at 1604. Even
if we liberally construe Mr. Hayes’ federal petition as an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim as he requests, we conclude any alleged deficiency of his counsel in
failing to advise him of the correct sentencing range did not prejudice him. 2 This
is because Mr. Hayes initially pled guilty, thinking his sentence range was four to
sixteen years. Given this plea, Mr. Hayes has not shown why he would not have
also pled guilty to the lesser sentence of four-to-twelve years, if correctly advised.
Moreover, the state trial court found Mr. Hayes testified the difference in the
sentencing range would not have made a difference in his pleading guilty.
Under the circumstances presented, we hold Mr. Hayes demonstrates he
exhausted his state remedies. However, we conclude Mr. Hayes fails to state a
constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel debatable among jurists.
For this reason, he fails to meet the requirement for issuance of a certificate of
2
To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Mr. Hayes must show
either that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness
or that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense. See Brewer v. Reynolds,
51 F.3d 1519, 1523 & n. 7 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
516 U.S. 1123 (1996).
-7-
appealability. Thus, we must deny Mr. Hayes a certificate of appealability and
DISMISS his appeal. We nevertheless grant Mr. Hayes’ request to proceed in
forma pauperis.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-8-
