Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
TENTH CIRCUIT
APR 29 2003
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CRAIG RITCHIE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 02-6345
(W.D. Oklahoma)
Respondent-Appellee.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to decide this case on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2)(c). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral
argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
I and II to run consecutively to each other and count III to run concurrently to
counts I and II. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed Mr.
Ritchies convictions.
Mr. Ritchies federal habeas petition alleges that he is entitled to relief
because (1) he was denied his right to a speedy trial and sufficient notice to
present an adequate defense; (2) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain
his convictions; and (3) he was denied the right to a fair trial as a result of the
admission of evidence of other crimes. In her report and recommendation to the
district court, the magistrate judge addressed each of Mr. Ritchies claims on the
merits and concluded that the OCCAs application of the law as to each claim was
reasonable. The district court addressed each of Mr Ritchies objections to the
magistrate judges report, adopted the magistrate judges report and denied Mr.
Richies petition and request for a COA.
We have carefully reviewed Mr. Ritchies brief, the magistrate judges
thorough report and recommendation, the district courts disposition, and the
record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Mr. Ritchies
brief raises an issue which meets the standards for the grant of a COA.
Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as set forth by the district court in
its order of October 9, 2002, we cannot say that reasonable jurists could debate
-4-
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in
a different manner. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Ritchies request for a COA and DISMISS this
appeal.
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-5-