Filed: Jun. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT June 17, 2015 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ANTHONY T. WINSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 15-6022 v. (D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00977-C) (W.D. Okla.) TERRY MARTIN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. _ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL _ Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. _ Anthony Winston, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT June 17, 2015 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ANTHONY T. WINSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 15-6022 v. (D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00977-C) (W.D. Okla.) TERRY MARTIN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. _ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL _ Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. _ Anthony Winston, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the ..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT June 17, 2015
___________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ANTHONY T. WINSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 15-6022
v.
(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00977-C)
(W.D. Okla.)
TERRY MARTIN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
____________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND
DISMISSING APPEAL
____________________________________
Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
____________________________________
Anthony Winston, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal
the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, claiming actual innocence
and ineffective assistance of counsel. We construe pro se filings liberally. See Garza v.
Davis,
596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010). The district court dismissed Winston’s
petition as untimely. Winston now asks us to grant him a COA and hear his appeal. He
also seeks permission to proceed In Forma Pauperis.
“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 v.
McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Winston concedes his petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) but claims
he is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period because he provides new,
reliable evidence of his actual innocence. “[A]ctual innocence, if proved, serves as a
gateway through which a petitioner may pass” even where the § 2244(d)(1) limitations
period has expired. McQuiggin v. Perkins,
133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013). But a tenable
actual-innocence gateway plea requires a petitioner to persuade the district court that, in
light of the “new reliable evidence—whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence,
trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence,” Schlup v. Delo,
513 U.S.
298, 324 (1995), “no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.” McQuiggin,
133 S. Ct. 1924 at 1928. Critically, “actual
innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.” Bousley v. United
States,
523 U.S. 614, 615 (1998).
Winston’s “evidence” takes two forms. First, he asserts the evidence against him
was procured through a warrantless wiretap. But this claim goes to legal sufficiency, not
factual innocence. See
Bousley, 523 U.S. at 615. Second, he claims he “told his defense
counsel that it was not his voice that was allegedly recorded by the police during the
wiretap.” But this is not new evidence. And in any event, Winston’s own say-so lacks
the reliability necessary to support an actual innocence claim.
Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324.
In sum, we agree with the district court that Winston’s appeal is a frivolous
attempt to breathe life into meritless claims. Accordingly, Winston’s request for a COA
-2-
is DENIED and his appeal is DISMISSED, and his Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
United States Circuit Judge
-3-