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.
Darrel GOETZEL, Petitioner - Appellant v. WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Petitioner-Appellant Darrel G. Goetzel, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as time-barred and not subject to equitable tolling. Goetzel v. Wyo. Attorney Gen., No. 1:19-CV-00061-ABJ (D. Wyo. Aug. 23, 2019).
On March 25, 2019, Mr. Goetzel filed his petition claiming that his sentence is illegal under the double jeopardy clause, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The district court concluded that the one-year limitation period, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), expired in 2012 and that Mr. Goetzel was not entitled to equitable tolling.
To obtain a COA, Mr. Goetzel must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner 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.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Here, Mr. Goetzel delayed filing the underlying habeas petition by nearly seven years and has failed to “show specific facts to support his claim of extraordinary circumstances and due diligence” sufficient to trigger equitable tolling of the limitations period. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 928 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). The district court thoroughly explained why equitable tolling would not apply. No reasonable jurist would find the district court’s procedural ruling debatable, and it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether Mr. Goetzel made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendments.
We DENY a COA 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. 19-8059
Decided: December 20, 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)