HINES v. DAVIS (2020)

Joseph Barnard Hines, Texas prisoner # 901768, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 1999 conviction for aggravated robbery and 15-year term of imprisonment, which he has fully discharged. He contends that reasonable jurists would debate whether, for the purpose of habeas jurisdiction, he is in custody pursuant to a separate aggravated sexual assault conviction and life sentence that was enhanced by the robbery conviction and whether he alleges valid claims with respect to his robbery conviction.

To obtain a COA, a § 2254 petitioner 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's denial of federal habeas relief is based on procedural grounds, this court will issue a COA “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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

Hines fails to make the requisite showing for issuance of a COA. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. His motion for a COA is therefore denied. To the extent that he requests a COA regarding the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing, we construe his motion as a direct appeal of that issue and affirm. See Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234-35 (5th Cir. 2016).

COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.