Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01355/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01355-0/pdf.json

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

---

J 

,• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL D. WENTZ, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United Scates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirn.iit 

A R 2 'i 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-1355 

WALTER KAUTZKY and DUANE 

WOODWARD, Colorado Attorney 

General, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

(D. Colo. 89-F-427) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Michael D. Wentz, an inmate at Buena Vista 

Correctional Facility in Buena Vista Colorado, was convicted by a 

jury of the following: attempted first degree murder, second 

degree kidnapping, conspiracy to commit a crime of violence, 

* 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: 89-1355 Document: 01019967116 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 1 
, 

conspiracy to commit first degree murder, two counts of aggravated 

robbery, aggravated first degree motor vehicle theft, criminal 

mischief, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and second 

degree burglary. On March 14, 1989, after exhausting his state 

court remedies, appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus in 

the United States District court for the District of Colorado. On 

September 25, 1989, the district court entered an order denying 

appellant's petition for habeas corpus and dismissing the action. 

After obtaining from the district court an extension of time to 

file a notice of appeal, appellant filed a notice of appeal on 

November 17, 1989. On November 24, 1989, the district court 

granted appellant's motion to proceed on appeal without the 

prepayment of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That same day, 

the district court denied appellant's motion for a certificate of 

probable cause. 1 

In his brief, appellant makes the same two arguments that he 

made before the district court below. First, appellant argues 

that the state trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress 

the lineup identification by three of the victims because they 

were tainted by impermissibly suggestive photographic lineups. 

Second, appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his 

motion to suppress evidence seized from his car by wrongly 

crediting the testimony of two police officers over that of 

another witness to the events preceding the issuance of the 

1 After reviewing appellant's brief and the record, we conclude 

that appellant has made a "substantial showing of the denial of a 

federal right" necessary for the issuance of a certificate of 

. probable cause . .'' See ,Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 -U.S. 880, 893 (1983) 

(quotations omitted). 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1355 Document: 01019967116 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 2 
warrant. We have reviewed the record and briefs on appeal and 

AFFIRM for the same reasons articulated by the district court in 

its order denying appellant's petition for habeas corpus. 

Accordingly, appellant's application for a certificate of 

probable cause is GRANTED but the appeal is DISMISSED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1355 Document: 01019967116 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 3