Filed: Jun. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 12, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court BRIAN E. BETTS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 13-3197 (Case No. 5:11-CV-03097-SAC) DAVID MCKUNE; ATTORNEY (D. Kan.) GENERAL OF KANSAS. Respondents - Appellees. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Brian E. Betts was convicted of first-degree murder in Kansas state court. Prior to se
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 12, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court BRIAN E. BETTS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 13-3197 (Case No. 5:11-CV-03097-SAC) DAVID MCKUNE; ATTORNEY (D. Kan.) GENERAL OF KANSAS. Respondents - Appellees. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Brian E. Betts was convicted of first-degree murder in Kansas state court. Prior to sen..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 12, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
BRIAN E. BETTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 13-3197
(Case No. 5:11-CV-03097-SAC)
DAVID MCKUNE; ATTORNEY (D. Kan.)
GENERAL OF KANSAS.
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Brian E. Betts was convicted of first-degree murder in Kansas
state court. Prior to sentencing, Petitioner filed two pro se post-conviction
motions. The first was a motion for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel. The second was a motion for judgment of acquittal. Petitioner’s trial
attorney was permitted to withdraw from representation, and Petitioner
subsequently retained new counsel, who filed a supplemental motion requesting
either a new trial or a judgment of acquittal. Following multiple evidentiary
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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.
hearings, the state trial court denied these motions. Petitioner was then sentenced
to a term of life imprisonment. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct
appeal by the Kansas Supreme Court. State v. Betts,
33 P.3d 575 (Kan. 2001).
Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507. The state
district court denied Petitioner relief. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the
denial of Petitioner’s K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, Betts v. State, No. 101,119,
225
P.3d 1211,
2010 WL 919795 (Kan. Ct. App. March 5, 2010) (unpublished table
decision), and the Kansas Supreme Court ultimately denied review.
Petitioner subsequently filed an application for federal habeas corpus relief
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Petitioner raised
multiple grounds for relief including, among others, prosecutorial misconduct,
newly discovered evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The district
court found that several of the various grounds for relief raised by Petitioner were
procedurally barred, waived, defaulted, and otherwise unavailable. The district
court found Petitioner was not entitled to relief under the remaining grounds
raised as a result of the high level of deference owed to state courts’
determinations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
See Renico v. Lett,
559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (“AEDPA . . . imposes a highly
deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, and demands that state-
court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)). Therefore, the district court denied the petition without
-2-
holding an evidentiary hearing and denied a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner submitted a combined merits brief and application for a
certificate of appealability to this court, in which he reasserts most of the grounds
for relief raised in his petition to the district court. Having thoroughly reviewed
the briefs and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not
debate the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s habeas petition. See Slack v.
McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Accordingly, we DENY Petitioner’s application for a certificate of
appealability and DISMISS the appeal. However, his motions to file a brief out
of time and to file an oversized brief are GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-