Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02121/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L £J D 

United Stares Court of Appeal& 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

RAYMOND S. BACA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DARELD KERBY, Warden, Central New 

Mexico Correctional Facility, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MARO 4 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 91-2121 

) (D.C. No. CIV 87-1512-M) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has detennined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the detennination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner appeals from the district court's denial of his 

petition for habeas relief, asserted under 28 u.s.c. § 2254, 

challenging two New Mexico convictions for anned robbery, N.M. 

Stat. Ann. § 30-16-2, with fireann enhancement, N.M. Stat. Ann . 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-2121 Document: 010110226722 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 1 
§ 31-18-16. He asserts three grounds for habeas relief: 1 1) 

whether the photographic identification of Petitioner by three 

witnesses violated due process; 2) whether the state trial 

court's refusal to reopen the case to receive evidence supporting 

Petitioner's alibi violated due process and his Sixth Amendment 

right to present a complete defense; and 3) whether the trial 

court's refusal to give the jury Petitioner's proposed 

instructions concerning eyewitness identification and his alibi 

defense violated due process. 

arguments, we affirm. 2 

After considering the parties' 

A jury convicted Petitioner of the armed robbery of two gas 

stations. Three eyewitnesses to the crimes identified Petitioner 

as the armed robber by picking his picture out of a photo array. 

These three eyewitnesses also identified Petitioner during the 

trial as the armed robber. 

Petitioner asserts that the photographic identification 

procedures were impermissibly suggestive and, therefore, violated 

due process. We review the district court's conclusion that the 

photo array did not violate due process de novo, but the state 

court's factual findings are entitled to a presumption of 

correctness. Archuleta v. Kerby, 864 F . 2d 709, 710-11 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1084 (1989). 

1 Petitioner does not appeal the district court's denial of his 

fourth habeas claim, which challenged the state trial court's 

factual determination that a juror had not been sleeping during 

Petitioner's trial. 

2 Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Probable 

is granted. 

2 

Cause 

Appellate Case: 91-2121 Document: 010110226722 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 2 
The inquiry required by the due process clause when 

an identification procedure is challenged is two 

pronged: first, it must be determined whether the 

identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive; 

and, second, if it is found to have been so, whether the 

identification nevertheless was reliable in view of the 

totality of the circumstances. The two prongs of the 

inquiry should be made separately; it is necessary to 

reach the second prong only if the procedure was 

impermissibly suggestive. 

Johnston v. Makowski, 823 F.2d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1987)(citation 

omitted), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1026 (1988). Because we conclude 

that the photographic identification procedure was not 

impermissibly suggestive, we affirm the district court's denial of 

habeas relief on this claim. 3 

Petitioner next argues that the trial court, by refusing to 

reopen the case, prior to closing argument, to allow the defense 

to present evidence in support of Petitioner's alibi, deprived him 

of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. 

"'State court rulings on the admissibility of evidence may not be 

questioned in federal habeas corpus proceedings unless they render 

the trial so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a denial of 

federal constitutional rights.'" Chavez v. Kerby, 848 F.2d 1101, 

1102 (10th Cir. 1988)(quoting Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 850 

(10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047 (1980)). "[T]he 

scope of our review is narrow: our responsibility is to ensure 

that [Petitioner] was afforded the protections of due process, not 

to exercise supervisory powers over the New Mexico state courts." 

3 Before the district court, Petitioner also asserted that the 

state deprived him of due process by failing to preserve two 

earlier photographic arrays which did not contain Petitioner's 

photograph and from which the victims could not pick out the 

perpetrator of the robberies. Petitioner does not assert that 

argument on appeal. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-2121 Document: 010110226722 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 3 
Nichols v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 1250, 1253 (10th Cir.)(citing 

Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 642 (1974)), cert. 

denied, 490 U.S. 1112 (1989). We conclude that the state trial 

court did not commit any constitutional error and we, therefore, 

affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief on this 

ground. 

Lastly, Petitioner challenges the state trial court's refusal 

to instruct the jury using Petitioner's proposed eyewitness 

identification and alibi instructions. "'Habeas proceedings may 

not be used to set aside a state conviction on the basis of 

erroneous jury instructions unless the errors had the effect of 

rendering the trial so fundamentally unfair as to cause a denial 

of a fair trial in the constitutional sense.'" Shafer v. 

Stratton, 906 F.2d 506, 508 (10th Cir.)(quoting Brinlee, 608 F.2d 

at 854), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 393 (1990). We agree with the 

district court that the state court's failure to give these 

proposed instructions did not render the state trial fundamentally 

unfair. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-2121 Document: 010110226722 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 4