Filed: Apr. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 25, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court WADE ALLEN EDWARDS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 08-7011 v. (D.C. No. 07-CV-00274-FHS-KEW) (E.D. Okla.) JIM KEITH, Warden; OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. Petitioner-Appellant Wade Allen Edwards, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a c
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 25, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court WADE ALLEN EDWARDS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 08-7011 v. (D.C. No. 07-CV-00274-FHS-KEW) (E.D. Okla.) JIM KEITH, Warden; OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. Petitioner-Appellant Wade Allen Edwards, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a ce..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 25, 2008
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
WADE ALLEN EDWARDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 08-7011
v. (D.C. No. 07-CV-00274-FHS-KEW)
(E.D. Okla.)
JIM KEITH, Warden; OKLAHOMA
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Wade Allen Edwards, a state inmate appearing pro se,
seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) allowing him to appeal from the district
court’s denial of his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Mr.
Edwards has failed to demonstrate that it is reasonably debatable whether the
district court’s procedural ruling dismissing his petition as untimely is correct,
see Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000), we deny a COA and dismiss
the appeal.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s determination that Mr.
Edwards’s application was not filed within the applicable one-year statute of
limitations, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), and that he was not entitled to
equitable tolling due to extraordinary circumstances or actual innocence. On
appeal, Mr. Edwards argues that a state-created impediment and actual innocence
excuse the untimeliness of his petition. First, he argues that the district court
erred in finding that he orally withdrew his motion to withdraw his guilty plea
and that this error was a state-created impediment. A state-created impediment
may delay the running of the one-year limitations period until that impediment is
removed if it prevents the petitioner from filing a federal habeas petition. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B). Mr. Edwards’s contention is an argument on the merits
and does not address how the factual finding prevented him from timely filing his
federal habeas petition.
Second, Mr. Edwards’s arguments to equitably toll the limitations period
also fail. The limitations period may be equitably tolled if a petitioner “diligently
pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by
extraordinary circumstances beyond his control,” Marsh v. Soares,
223 F.3d 1217,
1220 (10th Cir. 2000), or if the petitioner is actually innocent, Gibson v. Klinger,
232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000). Mr. Edwards does not contest that his
conviction became final on August 23, 2003 after entering a guilty plea. He filed
the present petition on July 25, 2007, nearly four years later. He has not
demonstrated that he diligently pursued his claims during this period to warrant
equitable tolling. Mr. Edwards has also failed to support his alleged innocence.
-2-
He mistakenly argues legal innocence instead of factual innocence to justify
equitably tolling the limitations period. See Batrez Gradiz v. Gonzales,
490 F.3d
1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 2007). A petitioner must support his claim with “new
reliable evidence—whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy
eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence—that was not presented at
trial.” Schlup v. Delo,
513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995).
A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Mr. Edwards has
failed to demonstrate that it is reasonably debatable whether the district court’s
procedural ruling dismissing his petition is correct. See
Slack, 529 U.S. at
483–84.
We DENY the motion for a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-