Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-01063/USCOURTS-ca10-09-01063-0/pdf.json

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

---

*

 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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

April 12, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID TURLEY,

Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

AL ESTEP, Warden, Limon

Correctional Facility; THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents–Appellees.

No. 09-1063

(D.C. No. 1:04-CV-00790-CMA-CBS)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before LUCERO, PORFILIO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

David Turley requests a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We deny the

application for a COA and dismiss the appeal.

Appellate Case: 09-1063 Document: 01018401197 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Page: 1 
1

 About the time Turley filed the instant proceeding (04-CV-00790), he

filed another habeas petition (04-CV-00789) challenging additional convictions

for first degree sexual assault, second degree kidnaping, and habitual-criminal

counts imposed in two other prosecutions that were consolidated for trial in May

1990. See People v. Turley, Denver Dist. Court Nos. 89CR1651 & 89CR1652,

aff’d, 870 P.2d 498 (Colo. App. 1993) (affirming convictions in 89CR1651), cert.

denied, 93SC539 (Colo. March 21, 1994), and aff’d, 92CA0874 (Colo. March 24,

1994) (affirming convictions in 89CR1652), cert. denied, 94SC357 (Colo. Nov.

29, 1994). The disposition of Turley’s other petition is before this court in

Appeal No. 09-1215, and will be resolved in a separate decision.

-2-

Turley initiated this habeas proceeding in April 2004, challenging his

Colorado state court convictions for first degree sexual assault, second degree

kidnaping, robbery, and three habitual-criminal sentencing counts. See People v.

Turley, Denver Dist. Court No. 89CR1827, aff’d, 90CA1542 (Colo. App. May 20,

1993), cert. denied, 93SC485 (Colo. Dec. 27, 1993). A federal magistrate judge

determined that several of Turley’s claims had not been exhausted and that state

court review would be unavailable. The magistrate judge recommended treating

these claims as defaulted under the “anticipatory procedural bar” principle

derived from Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 (1991), and denying

Turley’s remaining claims on the merits. The district court adopted the

magistrate judge’s recommendations and denied habeas relief. 

Turley contends that the district court erred by confusing this habeas

proceeding with another of Turley’s,1

 and by holding that many of his claims

were unexhausted. To obtain a COA on either of these procedural issues, Turley

must “show[], at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

Appellate Case: 09-1063 Document: 01018401197 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Page: 2 
2

 Turley himself has blurred the line between the two distinct habeas

proceedings. He refers repeatedly on appeal to his “Traverse to the Answer,”

which was filed in his other habeas proceeding. Building on this self-generated

confusion, Turley complains that the magistrate judge used the wrong number

designations in dealing with many of his claims. However, the magistrate judge

correctly referenced and discussed all of the claims in Turley’s petition; Turley is

simply complaining that the magistrate judge did not use the different numbering

system employed in the omnibus Traverse filed in his other habeas proceeding. 

The most telling example is Turley’s insistence that the magistrate judge

erroneously referred to a “claim thirteen” when no such claim existed; the habeas

petition in this case sets forth fourteen claims.

-3-

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

We have reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendations and the district

court’s order, as well as the state court records to which they refer, and discern no

confusion between the habeas claims and associated state convictions at issue in

this appeal with those at issue in Turley’s other habeas case. The few references

to state court decisions involving the convictions challenged in Turley’s other

habeas petition are properly identified and are referenced only because they raised

issues similar to those germane to the convictions challenged here.2

Turley also contends that the district court erred in finding some of his

claims unexhausted because it failed to take into account his most recent state

post-conviction proceeding. In that proceeding, Turley argued: (1) ineffective

assistance of trial counsel for failing to adequately investigate and challenge two

Appellate Case: 09-1063 Document: 01018401197 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Page: 3 
-4-

prior convictions underlying his habitual-criminal charges; and (2) ineffective

assistance of post-conviction counsel for failing to include in a certiorari petition

to the Colorado Supreme Court the above-referenced ineffective assistance of trial

counsel claim or to challenge the search and seizure of a vehicle owned by

Turley’s wife. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of this

post-conviction motion in People v. Turley, 01CA1991 (Colo. App. Nov. 6,

2003), cert. denied, 03SC704 (March 22, 2004). 

Despite Turley’s assertions, the district court did not dismiss the claims

raised in his more recent post-conviction challenge as unexhausted or

procedurally barred. Rather, the court rejected them on the merits. Accordingly,

Turley’s allegations regarding this proceeding do not warrant a COA.

We DENY Turley’s application for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. 

Because Turley has failed to advance “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the

law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal,” Watkins v. Leyba,

543 F.3d 624, 627 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted), we also DENY his

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-1063 Document: 01018401197 Date Filed: 04/12/2010 Page: 4