Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01042/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED 

v. 

ORLANDO 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 2 3 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEF~ 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

) 

) 

MARTINEZ, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 92-1042 

(D.C. No. 91-C-2114) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Orlando Martinez appeals from an order of the 

district court denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 

sentence, filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2255. We affirm the 

district court's decision on the ground that Defendant's claims of 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-1042 Document: 010110353517 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 1
newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance are 

successive and his claim regarding the withholding of exculpatory 

evidence is unsupported. 

Defendant was convicted of possessing both heroin and cocaine 

with the intent to distribute, based on the following facts. 

Denver police officers pulled over a vehicle in which Defendant 

was riding as a passenger. When Defendant stepped out of the car, 

balloons, snow-seals, and plastic bags fell out on the street. A 

search of his pockets revealed a large sum of money, more 

balloons, and 

paraphernalia 

plastic bags. 

were found inside 

Cocaine, 

the car. 

heroin, and drug 

The question became, 

therefore, who had control and dominion over the vehicle. 

At trial, the main testimony came from the driver of the 

vehicle, Reggie Owens. Owens testified that Defendant arrived 

with the vehicle and paid Owens $400.00 to drive Defendant to 

various stops. Another witness, George Benningfield, testified 

that the car actually belonged to his employer, the Divine 

Missionary Baptist Church (which apparently operates Community 

Education Counseling, Inc.), but that he wrote out a purported 

bill of sale to Defendant's brother upon Defendant's request. 

Based on the testimony of these two witnesses, the jury found that 

Defendant possessed the cocaine and heroin found in the vehicle. 

Defendant now presents two pieces of "newly discovered 

evidence" to show that Benningfield's testimony was perjured. 

This evidence consists of newspaper clippings describing the 

"super cop scandal," in which several Denver police officers set 

up robberies and burglaries with Benningfield's help, and a copy 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1042 Document: 010110353517 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 2
of the car title, which shows that the vehicle was not properly 

transferred to Community Education Counseling, Inc., because the 

seller's signature was not notarized. He also claims that his 

attorney was ineffective and that the prosecution withheld 

exculpatory evidence. 

Defendant has contested the validity of his convictions on a 

number of occasions. On direct appeal, he was granted leave to 

raise sixteen issues in addition to those raised by his appellate 

counsel. These issues included whether he should have been 

afforded a copy of the grand jury transcript and whether adequate 

time had been granted to prepare a proper defense. The district 

court's judgment was affirmed in all respects. United States v. 

Martinez, Nos. 89-1130 & 89-1138 (10th Cir. Sept. 7, 1990). 

Defendant then filed a motion for new trial, pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, alleging the discovery of new evidence. His 

motion was premised on the same newspaper reports which form the 

basis for his current § 2255 motion. In United States v. 

Martinez, No. 90-1344 (10th Cir. June 6, 1991), we affirmed the 

district court's decision that such impeachment evidence was 

insufficient to warrant a new trial, noting that the newspaper 

reports were not specifically related to Defendant's case. 

Defendant next filed a Motion Under 28 u.s.c. § 2255 to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal 

Custody, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1042 Document: 010110353517 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 3
and the discovery of new evidence. This motion was denied on 

August 12, 1991. No appeal was taken from the denial. 

On December 2, 1991, Defendant filed a motion for relief 

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 32. The following day, he filed 

his second motion pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255, in which he again 

argued the existence of newly discovered evidence and ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Defendant also claimed that he was 

improperly sentenced and made an oblique reference to the 

government's purported failure to reveal Benningfield's criminal 

background. In its answer, the government argued that these 

issues had been raised and decided previously and requested that 

the successive petition be dismissed. Defendant's second§ 2255 

motion was denied on January 6, 1992. This appeal follows. 

28 u.s.c. § 2255 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he 

sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or 

successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same 

prisoner." In Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963), 

the Supreme Court stated that a subsequent petition for relief 

under § 2255 may be dismissed if, "(l) the same ground presented 

in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the 

applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination 

was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served 

by reaching the merits of the subsequent application." The "ends 

of justice" require review only when the defendant "supplements 

his constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual 

innocence." Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 454 (1986). 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-1042 Document: 010110353517 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 4
Here, Defendant's claims of newly discovered evidence and 

ineffective assistance of counsel were raised in a prior§ 2255 

motion and were determined on their merits. 1 Defendant's second 

application advances no "colorable showing of factual innocence." 

For these reasons, Defendant's first two issues are successive, 

requiring no consideration on their merits. 2 

Defendant argues finally that the prosecution improperly 

withheld exculpatory evidence. The record clearly demonstrates 

that defense counsel was aware of both the contents of the car 

title and of witness Benningfield's criminal record. The record 

also shows that a copy of the grand jury transcript was provided 

to defense counsel well before trial. Finally, there is no 

evidence that the prosecution knew of Benningfield's involvement 

in the "super cop scandal" prior to trial. 

therefore, is without merit. 

Defendant's claim, 

1 Although it is not clear whether a copy of the vehicle title 

was submitted with Defendant's prior petition, such evidence 

cannot be considered "newly discovered." The jury was fully 

informed of the contents of the title and the fact that the 

document had not yet been submitted to the Department of Motor 

Vehicles. R. Supp. Vol. III at 73. Moreover, contrary to 

Defendant's statement, the information in the car title did not 

contradict any testimony by witness Benningfield. Therefore, 

"discovery" of the car title adds nothing to Defendant's argument 

concerning Benningfield's testimony. 

2 Even if we were to address the merits of Defendant's claims, 

a review of the record convinces us that the district court's 

decision should be affirmed. 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-1042 Document: 010110353517 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 5
Defendant's request for discovery is hereby denied, and the 

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-1042 Document: 010110353517 Date Filed: 09/23/1992 Page: 6