Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02045/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02045-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Coμrt(?i Appea\G Tent'h C1rcu1t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DANIEL ZEPEDA, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DONALD DORSEY, ) 

) 

Respondent, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW ) 

MEXICO, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

SEP O 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2045 

(D.C. No. 87-0317 JP) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. we grant petitioner's request for a 

certificate of probable cause and deny petitioner's request for 

oral argument. 

* 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: 90-2045 Document: 010110084297 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 1 
Petitioner Daniel Zepeda, a New Mexico state prisoner, 

appeals the decision of the district court dismissing, with 

prejudice, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. § 2254. 

Following a jury trial in 1984, petitioner was convicted of 

first degree murder, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-2-1, and 

sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal to the New 

Mexico Supreme Court, petitioner argued that it was error for the 

trial court: (1) to permit the mother of the murder victim to 

testify as to statements her son made to her before his 

disappearance; (2) to allow a polygrapher to testify as to the 

conclusions reached by another polygrapher regarding petitioner's 

truthfulness; and (3) to exclude evidence that both of the state's 

key witnesses had inconclusive polygraph results regarding their 

versions of the crime. Petitioner also argued that the evidence 

presented at trial was insufficient to support a conclusion of 

premeditation. The state appellate court reached the merits on 

all of petitioner's claims and subsequently denied his appeal. 1 

In 1987, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition with the 

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. A 

magistrate judge, in his proposed findings and recommended 

disposition, concluded that petitioner had exhausted his state 

remedies as required by 28 u.s.c. § 2254(b), but that he had 

failed to present his first three claims to the state appellate 

court in a federal context and thus had procedurally defaulted on 

those claims. The magistrate judge further concluded petitioner's 

1 State v. Zepeda, No. 15,610 slip op. (N.M. Nov. 14, 1985). 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2045 Document: 010110084297 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 2 
fourth claim was without merit and recommended that all of 

petitioner's claims be dismissed with prejudice. The district 

court, after a de novo review, made additional findings, adopted 

the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommended 

disposition, and dismissed the petition. IR. tab 33. 

To determine whether federal habeas corpus relief is 

unavailable because of state procedural bar, the court "must 

inquire not only if there is a state procedural bar, but whether 

the state itself applied the bar." Morishita v. Morris, 702 F.2d 

207, 209 (10th Cir. 1983). A federal claimant is denied habeas 

review only if the last state court rendering judgment in the case 

based its judgment on procedural default. Harris v. Reed, 489 

U.S. 255, 262 (1989). 

After examining the state court proceedings in this case, we 

conclude that petitioner's failure to frame three of the issues in 

a federal context at the state level constitutes nonexhaustion of 

state remedies rather than procedural default as the district 

court held. See Nichols v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 1250, 1252 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1112 (1989). The record indicates 

that the state appellate court, when considering petitioner's 

claims, denied petitioner's appeal on the merits, not procedural 

bar. See Shafer v. Stratton, 906 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.) 

(procedural default does not exist unless last state court 

rendering judgment clearly and expressly states that its decision 

rests on procedural bar), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 393 (1990). 

Hence, relative to this court's jurisdiction to review 

petitioner's appeal, we address the issue as a failure to exhaust 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2045 Document: 010110084297 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 3 
' 

state remedies. The respondent raised the exhaustion issue in the 

district court in its answer and a memorandum brief. Although it 

defends the district court's dismissal on the basis decided by 

that court, we do not consider the exhaustion issue to have been 

abandoned on appeal. 

When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed in 

federal court that is a "mixed petition" containing at least one 

claim that has not been exhausted in state court, Rose v. Lundy, 

455 U.S. 509 (1982), requires the federal court to dismiss the 

petition. This leaves "the prisoner with the choice of returning 

to state court to exhaust his claims or of amending or 

resubmitting the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims 

to the district court." Id. at 510. In exercising his choice 

petitioner is reminded that "a prisoner who decides to proceed 

only with his exhausted claims and deliberately sets aside his 

unexhausted claims risks 

petitions." Id. at 521. 

dismissal of subsequent federal 

We REMAND to the district court with the direction that it 

put petitioner to the choice set forth in Rose. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2045 Document: 010110084297 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 4