Filed: May 17, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2005 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk LYMAN WAYNE TOMLIN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 04-7091 (E. D. Oklahoma) ERIC FRANKLIN, Warden, (D.Ct. No. 03-CV-624-W) Respondent - Appellee. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL * Before KELLY, O'BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that ora
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2005 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk LYMAN WAYNE TOMLIN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 04-7091 (E. D. Oklahoma) ERIC FRANKLIN, Warden, (D.Ct. No. 03-CV-624-W) Respondent - Appellee. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL * Before KELLY, O'BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 17 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LYMAN WAYNE TOMLIN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 04-7091
(E. D. Oklahoma)
ERIC FRANKLIN, Warden, (D.Ct. No. 03-CV-624-W)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
AND DISMISSING APPEAL *
Before KELLY, O'BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, 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. 34.1.9(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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;
nevertheless, an order may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Lyman W. Tomlin, an Oklahoma state prisoner appearing pro se 1,
seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to challenge the district court's
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to file within the
statute of limitations. Because we do not believe jurists of reason would find
debatable the district court's procedural dismissal of Tomlin’s petition, Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000), we deny his application for a COA and
dismiss the appeal.
On October 4, 1989, Tomlin was convicted in the District Court of
Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, of Murder in the Second Degree. 2 He was sentenced
to sixty years imprisonment. Tomlin appealed his conviction and sentence to the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), which affirmed. See Tomlin v.
State, No. F-90-473 (Okla. Crim. App. October 22, 1993)(not for publication).
Almost ten years later, on March 18, 2003, Tomlin filed a pro se application for
post-conviction relief with the state trial court claiming ineffective assistance of
trial and appellate counsel. That application was denied on April 18, 2003.
Tomlin appealed to the OCCA, which affirmed . See Tomlin v. State, No. PC-
We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan. 318
1
F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).
2
OKLA. STAT. tit. 21 § 701.8 defines murder in the second degree, in relevant part,
as a homicide “perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and
evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated
design to effect the death of any particular individual . . . .”
-2-
2003-524 (Okla. Crim. App. August 7, 2003).
On November 12, 2003, Tomlin filed his federal habeas petition.
Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d), which establishes a one-year period of limitations for habeas petitions. 3
The district court granted respondent's motion, concluding that the one-year
limitations period for Tomlin to file a federal habeas petition expired on April 24,
1997. The district court identified no evidence in the record tending to prove
Tomlin was actually innocent, found Tomlin failed to demonstrate due diligence
in pursuing his federal habeas claims and found that no extraordinary
circumstances existed over which Tomlin had no control; therefore, equitable
tolling of the limitations period was not warranted. See Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d
976, 978 (10th Cir. 1998).
3
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) provides a one-year statute of limitations running
“from the latest of (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
review; (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State
action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by
the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral
review; or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
diligence.”
-3-
“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should
issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
Tomlin does not contest that his conviction occurred prior to the enactment
of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and he did not
appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court. Therefore, statutorily, he was
required to file his habeas petition by April 24, 1997 - within one year after
AEDPA went into effect. See United States v. Hurst, 322 F.3d 1256, 1261 n. 4
(10th Cir. 2003). However, Tomlin insists he is entitled to equitable tolling
because he is actually innocent. (Appellant Br. at 2.)
Section 2244(d)(1) is not jurisdictional and as a limitation may be subject
to equitable tolling. Miller, 141 F.3d at 978. We have previously stated
AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations is subject to equitable
tolling but only in rare and exceptional circumstances. Equitable
tolling would be appropriate, for example, when a prisoner is actually
innocent, when an adversary's conduct--or other uncontrollable
circumstances--prevents a prisoner from timely filing, or when a
prisoner actively pursues judicial remedies but files a defective
pleading during the statutory period. Simple excusable neglect is not
sufficient. Moreover, a petitioner must diligently pursue his federal
habeas claims[.]
-4-
Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). Accord
Miller, 141 F.3d at 978. Tomlin admits he shot
and killed his estranged wife and that his defense of insanity was presented to and
rejected by the jury. Nonetheless, he maintains equitable tolling should apply in
his case, apparently because his petition for habeas is based, in part, on
ineffective assistance of counsel in presenting his insanity defense. Thus, if his
petition is successful, he could be deemed innocent.
We agree with the district court that “apart from his unsupported
allegations, there is no evidence in the record to suggest petitioner is actually
innocent of the charges of which he stands convicted. . . .” (R. Vol. I, District
Court Order at 3.) Nor does the record on appeal establish other circumstances
that are so extraordinary as to justify equitable tolling. Thus, we conclude that
jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the district court was correct
in its procedural ruling.
Tomlin’s application for a COA is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered by the Court:
Terrence L. O’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
-5-
