Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Charles WHITTEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Dean WILLIAMS; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Petitioner-Appellant Charles Whitten, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) allowing him to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as time-barred and not subject to equitable tolling. Whitten v. Williams, No. 19-cv-00721-LTB-GPG (July 26, 2019). Because the district court’s procedural ruling is not reasonably debatable, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
In 2012, Mr. Whitten was convicted of two counts of witness intimidation and four counts of witness tampering in Colorado state court. Mr. Whitten’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and the Colorado Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari on April 20, 2015. His conviction became final on July 20, 2015. Thereafter, Mr. Whitten sought state post-conviction relief. The assigned magistrate judge determined that the one-year limitation period, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), for Mr. Whitten to file this action expired on September 26, 2018. Mr. Whitten did not file until March 11, 2019.
To obtain a COA, Mr. Whitten must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the district court denies a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds, the movant must demonstrate “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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Mr. Whitten argues that his appellate counsel told him that he had one year from the denial of state post-conviction relief to file his federal habeas petition and that his constitutional claims are reasonably debatable. The district court’s conclusion that Mr. Whitten’s equitable tolling claim did not present extraordinary circumstances and that he had not demonstrated actual innocence are not reasonably debatable. See Sigala v. Bravo, 656 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011); Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000).
We DENY a COA, DENY IFP, and DISMISS the appeal.
Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-1289
Decided: November 15, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)