Cole v. Zavaris, 10th Cir. (2009)
Cole v. Zavaris, 10th Cir. (2009)
Cole v. Zavaris, 10th Cir. (2009)
Clerk of Court
WADE COLE,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 09-1293
(D. of Colo.)
Respondent.
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1
Because Cole proceeds pro se, we review his pleadings and filings
liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 52021 (1972); Brown v. Perrill,
21 F.3d 1008, 1009 (10th Cir. 1994).
28 U.S.C. 2254. Cole seeks relief under a litany of legal theories, including
ineffective assistance of counsel, and violation of his First, Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude Cole is not entitled to
relief on any claim. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2253, we therefore
DENY his COA request and DISMISS his appeal.
I. Background
During the period of February 2001 to July 2001, Cole was engaged in
internet correspondence with a police officer who, as part of a sting operation,
was posing as a 14-year-old girl. Their correspondence was often sexual in nature
and Cole repeatedly discussed the sexual acts that would take place when he and
the girl spent time at his house. In July 2001, Cole arranged for a meeting with
this girl at a local mall, and was arrested when he arrived at the appointed
meeting place.
Cole was charged with enticement of a child and attempted sexual assault
on a child. After a jury trial of three days, the jury returned a guilty verdict on
the enticement count, but was unable to reach a verdict on the attempted assault
count. Cole subsequently agreed to admit to a previous sex offense, and in
exchange, the prosecution dismissed the attempted assault count. On July 15,
2002, Cole was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of ten years to life.
-2-
The district court found the following claims failed to state a cognizable
federal claim: that the trial court should have granted a hearing on Coles
Colorado Rule 35(c) motion, and that the Colorado Court of Appeals violated
Coles rights when it denied Coles requests for documents. The district court
found that the following claims were unexhausted and therefore procedurally
barred: the judge was biased; the trial court misinterpreted the relevant statute;
enticement of a child over the Internet was not a crime at the time of Coles
actions; admission of evidence obtained after a search of Coles apartment
violated his Fourth Amendment rights; destruction of evidence; insufficient
evidence; Coles conviction was actually for an attempt to attempt a crime;
improper jury instructions; a speedy trial violation; impermissible constructive
amendment of the enticement charge; police criminal violations in the operation
of the sting; cumulative errors at trial resulting in a structural error; and a flawed
felony complaint. Cole v. Zavaris [sic], No. 07cv1197, 2009 WL 1600556, at *2
(continued...)
-3-
addressed the remaining eighteen claims on the merits and found that none
presented grounds for relief. The district court therefore denied Coles habeas
petition, Cole v. Zavaris [sic], No. 07cv1197, 2009 WL 1600556, at *25 (D. Colo.
June 4, 2009), and denied Coles request for a certificate of appealability.
Cole then petitioned this court for a COA.
II. Discussion
To obtain a COA, Cole must make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 327 (2003). This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should
have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). To be entitled to a
COA, Cole need not establish that he will succeed on appeal, but he must prove
more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith. MillerEl, 537 U.S. at 338 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our role is to conduct an
overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their
merits. Id. at 336.
(...continued)
(D. Colo. June 4, 2009).
-4-
A.
The district court found that claims four and thirty did not state a federal
claim since they only challenge the states treatment of his post-conviction
motion. Because the constitutional error [Cole] raises focuses only on the
States post-conviction remedy and not the judgment which provides the basis for
his incarceration, it states no cognizable federal habeas claim. Sellers v. Ward,
135 F.3d 1333, 1339 (10th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). We agree with the
district courts determination and accordingly deny Cole a COA on these issues.
2.
Failure to Exhaust
A writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless the applicant has
exhausted his available state court remedies, with an exception for circumstances
-5-
in which the existing remedies are not sufficient to protect the applicants rights.
28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1). Exhaustion requires that the federal issue has been
properly presented to the highest state court, either by direct review of the
conviction or in a postconviction attack. Dever v. Kan. State Penitentiary, 36
F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1994). After comparing Coles federal habeas petition
with his post-conviction appeal and his Colorado Rule 35(c) motion, the district
court found that thirteen of his claims were not fairly presented as federal
constitutional claims during his state proceedings and therefore were
unexhausted.
Our review of the record confirms that these claims were not presented to
the state courts as federal constitutional claims. In some instances, Cole states in
a conclusory fashion that the alleged error violated his federal constitutional
rights, but he cites no federal case law to support those claims and does little to
connect the claim with the rights he alleged were violated. [I]t is not enough to
make a general appeal to a constitutional guarantee as broad as due process to
present the substance of such a claim to a state court. Gray v. Netherland, 518
U.S. 152, 163 (1996). For this reason, we agree with the district courts
determination that these claims were unexhausted.
Furthermore, these claims cannot now be presented in a state court.
Colorado law prevents prisoners from bringing claims previously raised in a prior
appeal or post-conviction proceeding, or claims that could have been
-6-
The district court addressed the remainder of Coles claims on the merits,
but likewise found them insufficient to grant habeas relief.
For substantially the same reasons as the district courts order, we conclude
that Cole is not entitled to a COA on any of his claims. Cole has presented
nothing on appeal to suggest that the district courts denial of his habeas petition
was debatable or wrong.
-7-
1.
Existence of a Child
The district court construed claims one, twelve and sixteen as asserting that
Coles conviction was improper because the state never proved the existence of a
child victim. Cole presented this argument during his original trial and in all
subsequent state proceedings, and the state courts rejected his interpretation of the
statute. A state courts interpretation of the state . . . statute is a matter of state
law binding on this court in habeas proceedings. Parker v. Scott, 394 F.3d 1302,
1319 (10th Cir. 2005). Therefore, these claims cannot be grounds for habeas
relief unless the state courts decision was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
-8-
Miranda Violation
courts dismissal of these claims applied the proper law in a manner that no
reasonable jurists would find debatable, and therefore we decline to issue a COA
on these claims.
5.
Freedom of Speech
In claim six, Cole argues his conviction violated his First Amendment right
to freedom of speech, since it was based on protected speechi.e., his e-mails.
Cole cites Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). He appears to
equate virtual child pornography with the exchange of e-mails with a person
who was only impersonating a child. This case does not provide support for
Coles assertion that he has a constitutionally protected right to engage in speech
directed at a person believed to be a minor that solicits and encourages unlawful
sexual behavior. He has failed to present any indication of a denial of a
constitutional right, and we decline to grant a COA on this issue.
6.
Entrapment
Cole argues in claim seven that he was entrapped by the officer posing as a
fourteen-year-old, and his constitutional rights were therefore violated. Insofar as
he is relying on the Colorado affirmative defense of entrapment, this is a state law
claim and therefore does not show a denial of a constitutional right. Vega v.
Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 583 (10th Cir. 1999). If, as construed by the district court,
Cole was attempting to raise the defense of outrageous government conduct, a
defense based on the Due Process clause, this claim also fails. A review of the
-10-
record demonstrates that the sting operation in which Cole was arrested was not a
situation in which the government engineer[ed] and direct[ed] the criminal
enterprise from start to finish and the defendant contribute[d] nothing more than
his presence and enthusiasm. United States v. Sneed, 34 F.3d 1570, 1577 (10th
Cir. 1994). Reasonable jurists would not debate this analysis, and therefore we
decline to grant a COA on this issue.
7.
Brady Violation
Double Jeopardy
Cole was charged, the court found no violation since each statute requires proof
of an additional fact which the other does not. Id. at 303. Reasonable jurists
would not debate that this was the correct application of the Blockburger test, and
therefore we deny a COA on this issue.
9.
Perjured Testimony
Claim seventeen presents the argument that Coles conviction violated his
due process rights because it was obtained based in part on perjured testimony by
the police officer in charge of the sting operation. A review of the full record
reveals Cole has presented no evidence that his conviction was based on perjured
testimony. Nor has he presented evidence or argument sufficient to show that the
district courts conclusion on this issue was debatable or wrong. We therefore
deny a COA on this issue.
10.
Right to Privacy
In claim nineteen, Cole asserts that his due process right to privacy was
violated when the prosecution used the e-mails he had sent to the police officer
involved in the sting. He presents no legal authority for the proposition that there
is a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails sent to a stranger over the
Internet, or that the person to whom the e-mails are directed may not disclose
them. The district court found no legal authority for these propositions, either,
and reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of this conclusion.
Therefore, we deny a COA on this claim.
-12-
11.
Equal Protection
In claim twenty, Cole asserts his equal protection rights were violated
because the statute under which he was convicted criminalized behavior that
would have been legal between two consenting adults. Because this statute does
not involve a protected classification and does not infringe on a fundamental
right, it is Coles burden to show that the statute lacks a rational basis. PriceCornelison v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 1103, 1110 (10th Cir. 2008). Because he has
failed to do so, he has not established a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, and we deny a COA on this claim.
12.
-13-
reasonable and did not result in prejudice to Cole is not debatable by reasonable
jurists. For this reason, we decline to grant a COA on this issue.
III. Conclusion
We conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate the resolution of the
constitutional claims presented. Accordingly, we DENY Coles request for a
certificate of appealability, and DISMISS his appeal.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-14-