Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04131/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04131-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lynn Jorgensen
Appellee
Daniel D. Padilla
Appellant

Document Text:

UHITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DANIEL D. PADILLA, 

Plaintiff-appellant, 

·M' l L .b D 

: .._- ·- Court ot Ap~b Umted Statr.s . .• - 'fenlb. C!rCUl , 

FEBO S 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

v. 

LYNN JORGENSEN, Warden, Utah 

State Prison, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-4131 

(D,C. No. 91-CV-444) 

(Dist. of Utah) 

Defendant-appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Daniel D. Padilla (Padilla), prose, appeals from an order 

of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 u.s.c. S 2254. Padilla's motion to proceed in 

* 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: 91-4131 Document: 010110222483 Date Filed: 02/06/1992 Page: 1 
forma pauperis is granted. Appellant's request that we issue a 

certificate of probable cause is granted. 

On July 16, 1987, Padilla was convicted, following a jury 

trial, of murder in the second degree. On April 29, 1991, Padilla 

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district 

court. He alleged that he had been denied due process and equal 

protection by the trial court's failure to properly instruct on 

second degree murder, give his proffered heat of passion 

instruction, and instruct that specific intent is an essential 

element of second degree murder. The petition was assigned to a 

magistrate for review. On June 20, 1991, the magistrate issued a 

report and recommendation in which he concluded: 

The petitioner's claims of constitutional error are 

predicated on the refusal of the state trial court in 

petitioner's case to give requested instructions which 

were antiquated and erroneous statements of the law of 

Utah or otherwise properly treated by the trial court. 

Under such circumstances, there is no basis for relief 

under 28 U.S.C. S 2254. 

(R., Tab 5 at p. 8). 

On July 3, 1991, the district court, after noting that no 

objection to the report and recommendation had been filed by 

Padilla, entered an order adopting the magistrate's report and 

recommendation and denying Padilla's petition. On July 8, 1991, 

Padilla filed an untimely objection to the magistrate's report and 

recommendations in which he alleged, for the 

ineffective assistance of counsel. 

first time, 

On July 16, 1991, the district court entered a second order 

denying Padilla's petition, finding: 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4131 Document: 010110222483 Date Filed: 02/06/1992 Page: 2 
Plaintiff attempts to raise for the first time a 

claim of incompetency of counsel. Because the issue was 

not raised in the petition for relief, and because 

plaintiff has failed to exhaust available state 

remedies, plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus is DENIED. 

(R., Tab 9 at pp. 1-2). 

On appeal, Padilla contends that: he should have been charged 

with the lesser included offense of manslaughter, rather than 

murder; there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict; 

his counsel was incompetent; and the court erred in failing to 

give his proffered jury instructions. Padilla acknowledges that 

"he did not originally raise the issue of incompetance [sic] of 

counsel." (Appellant's Opening Brief at p. 6). 

We affirm the court's dismissal of Padilla's petition for 

failure to exhaust available state remedies. Coleman v. Thompson, 

U.S. __ , 111 s. Ct. 2546, 2554 (1991) ("This Court has long 

held that a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition should 

be dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted available state 

remedies as to any of his federal claims"). 

issue forthwith. 

The mandate shall 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4131 Document: 010110222483 Date Filed: 02/06/1992 Page: 3