Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01069/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01069-0/pdf.json

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

---

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 6, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DELFINO ORTEGA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RON LEIBA, WARDEN, A.V.C.F.,

and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-1069

(D.C. No. 05-cv-01913-EWN-MEH)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and MCCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-Appellant Delfino Ortega requests a certificate of appealability

("COA"), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), that would enable him to appeal the district

court's decision denying him habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his

Colorado conviction for first degree murder. In his habeas petition, Ortega raises

several issues with respect to his trial on the murder charge: (1) whether

Appellate Case: 07-1069 Document: 0101123733 Date Filed: 02/06/2008 Page: 1 
- 2 -

polygraph evidence was erroneously admitted; (2) whether hearsay evidence was

improperly admitted under the co-conspirator exception; (3) whether two counts

of murder were erroneously not severed; (4) whether the jury was improperly

instructed concerning the burden of proof; and (5) whether a prosecution witness

was erroneously allowed to testify under the guise of total immunity without

proper establishment under the statutory guidelines. 

Ortega will be entitled to a COA if he can make "a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right." 28. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He can make such

a showing by establishing 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, 483-84 (2000) (quotations

omitted). For substantially the same reasons stated in the district court's order

and memorandum, we conclude Ortega has failed to make an adequate showing in

this case. We, therefore, DENY Ortega's motion for a COA and DISMISS this

appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-1069 Document: 0101123733 Date Filed: 02/06/2008 Page: 2