Filed: Jan. 09, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 9, 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT JAMES L. DORSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 08-3146 v. (D.C. No. 07-CV-03204-JWL) (D. Kan.) DAVID R. MCKUNE, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility; STEPHEN N. SIX, Attorney General of Kansas, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant James L. Dorsey, a
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 9, 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT JAMES L. DORSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 08-3146 v. (D.C. No. 07-CV-03204-JWL) (D. Kan.) DAVID R. MCKUNE, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility; STEPHEN N. SIX, Attorney General of Kansas, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant James L. Dorsey, a ..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 9, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES L. DORSEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 08-3146
v. (D.C. No. 07-CV-03204-JWL)
(D. Kan.)
DAVID R. MCKUNE, Warden,
Lansing Correctional Facility;
STEPHEN N. SIX, Attorney General
of Kansas,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before TACHA, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant James L. Dorsey, a state inmate appearing pro se,
seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Because we conclude that Mr. Dorsey has
not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2), we deny his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal. See Slack v.
McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Mr. Dorsey was convicted and sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment on a
single count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child in violation of Kan. Stat.
Ann. § 21-3504. On direct appeal, the Kansas Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed the conviction. See State v. Dorsey, No. 91,016,
2006 WL 619172 (Kan.
Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2006) (unpublished). The Kansas Supreme Court denied
review. Thereafter, Mr. Dorsey sought federal post-conviction relief asserting
nine claims for relief. Upon the district court’s denial of relief, see Dorsey v.
McKune,
553 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (D. Kan. 2008), Mr. Dorsey now requests a COA
from this court asserting that: (1) the prosecutor improperly vouched for the
credibility of the victim in her closing argument, (2) the trial court erred in
allowing certain expert testimony by a rebuttal witness for the prosecution, (3) the
trial court erred in granting the prosecution’s motion in limine, thus excluding
evidence of prior unfounded allegations of sexual abuse by the victim, (4) the
trial court erred in admitting Mr. Dorsey’s statements, which he claims were made
involuntarily and in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, (5) the trial court erred in
denying Mr. Dorsey’s motion for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence,
and (6) the district court erred in determining that the cumulative effect of trial
errors did not deny Mr. Dorsey a fair trial.
To obtain a COA from this court, Mr. Dorsey must “demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.”
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Before a federal court may
grant relief on a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings, a
petitioner must demonstrate that the state court's decision on that claim was
-2-
“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or was
“based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2). “The
question . . . is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination
was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable—a substantially
higher threshold.” Schriro v. Landrigan,
127 S. Ct. 1933, 1939 (2007). After
reviewing the record proper, we DENY a COA substantially for the reasons set
forth in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-