Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02101/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02101-0/pdf.json

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

---

Fl L - J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAitJnit.ed States Coc ~ of Appe:a.h Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RICHARD RALPH MARTINEZ, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v . 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW 

MEXICO ; NEW MEXICO PAROLE BOARD, 

Respondents-Appellants. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MARO 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-2101 

(D.C. No. CIV 89-1193 ) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before LOGAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and BELOT,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Monti L. Belot, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

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

submitted without oral argument . 

The case is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or u s ed 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: 92-2101 Document: 010110176509 Date Filed: 03/08/1993 Page: 1 
Appellee Richard Ralph Martinez is currently serving a life 

sentence in New Mexico following his conviction for first degree 

murder. After exhausting his state remedies by direct appeal to 

the New Mexico Supreme Court and petition for state 

post-conviction relief, Mr. Martinez filed a federal habeas 

petition pursuant to 28 U. S . C. § 2254 . He contended that he was 

eligible for parole after serving ten years of his sentence, had 

been unconstitutionally deprived of his earned good time credits, 

was entitled to be released, and had suffered cruel and unusual 

punishment . Following various motions, the district court granted 

habeas relief . Adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation, 

the district court ordered appellants to "provide Petitioner a 

hearing for the purpose of calculating his good time award and 

crediting that against his sentence." Rec. Vol . I, doc . 23. This 

appeal followed. 

Appellants contend that Mr. Martinez's habeas petition should 

be dismissed because application of good time credits to his 

parole eligibility date is moot, and application of good time 

credits to his sentence is contrary to state law. Mr. Martinez 

initially responded to the appeal prose, and appellants replied. 

The office of the Federal Public Defender was then appointed to 

represent Mr. Martinez and filed a response brief. 

Now counseled, Mr. Martinez concedes on appeal that, because 

he was afforded a parole eligibility hearing after serving ten 

years in prison, his previous argument that such hearing should 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-2101 Document: 010110176509 Date Filed: 03/08/1993 Page: 2 
have occurred earlier is moot. Nonetheless, he contends that he 

is entitled to a hearing reinstating his earned good time credits. 

We disagree. 

As Mr. Martinez acknowledges, the only remaining issue is 

"whether good time credits should also be subtracted from Mr. 

Martinez' maximum sentence of life imprisonment and how that may 

be accomplished . " Appellee's Br. at 15. 1 This issue, based in 

state law, is not cognizable on federal habeas review. Whether or 

not the good time credits Mr. Martinez had previously earned can 

operate to lessen his sentence under state law, Mr. Martinez is 

not "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 

treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore, 

this court lacks jurisdiction to review the issue. See Smith v. 

Phillips, 455 U. S . 209, 221 (1982); Linton v. Cox, 358 F.2d 859, 

861 (10th Cir. 1966). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is REVERSED, and this case REMANDED to the 

district court with instructions to deny the habeas petition and 

dismiss the case. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

1 Mr. Martinez did not argue his Eighth Amendment claim before 

the district court and does not argue it on appeal. Therefore, we 

consider the issue waived. See Abercrombie v . City of Catoosa, 

896 F.2d 1228, 1231 (10th Cir. 1990) . 

3 

-----------

Appellate Case: 92-2101 Document: 010110176509 Date Filed: 03/08/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-2101 Document: 010110176509 Date Filed: 03/08/1993 Page: 4