Jones v. Hartley, 10th Cir. (2010)
Jones v. Hartley, 10th Cir. (2010)
Jones v. Hartley, 10th Cir. (2010)
Clerk of Court
FREDRICK L. JONES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STEVE HARTLEY, Warden of the
Limon Correctional Facility, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF COLORADO,
No. 09-1530
(D.C. No. 08-CV-2007-ZLW)
(D. Colo.)
Respondents-Appellees.
Fredrick L. Jones, 1 a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, applies for
a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district courts denial of his
28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the district court
correctly resolved all of Mr. Joness arguments, we deny the application.
* * *
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
1
In several filings in this court, Mr. Joness first name was spelled
incorrectly as Frederick. Because both the district court and Mr. Jones spell his
first name as Fredrick, that is the spelling we will adopt.
Mr. Jones pled guilty to one count of second-degree kidnapping and one
count of first-degree sexual assault. The state trial court sentenced him to two
consecutive forty-five year prison terms, and his sentence was affirmed on direct
appeal. Mr. Jones then unsuccessfully pursued post-conviction relief in the state
courts, before filing the instant federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254.
The district court rejected each of Mr. Joness federal habeas claims and
dismissed his petition with prejudice, and it is this order from which Mr. Jones
now seeks to appeal.
Because Mr. Jones is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court,
he may not appeal the federal district courts denial of habeas relief without a
COA from the court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A). Where, as here, the
district court has addressed the merits of the petitioners claim, a COA will not
issue unless the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. Id. 2253(c)(2). Mindful of Mr. Joness pro se status, in
making this requisite assessment we review his claims with liberality. Van
Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2007).
Mr. Jones claims he is entitled to relief for four reasons. First, he argues
that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by withdrawing various motions
to suppress prior to his plea. Second, he argues that trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance by failing to investigate an affirmative defense of impaired
mental condition. Third, he claims that the state trial court applied an incorrect
-2-
In his federal habeas petition, Mr. Jones also raised the claim that trial
counsel had induced him to plead guilty based on misrepresentations as to what
his sentence would be. On appeal, however, Mr. Jones has conceded that claim.
See Opening Br. at 3(a).
-3-
-5-
-6-
-7-
2253(c)(2), the application for a COA is denied, and this appeal is dismissed.
His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 4
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge