Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02256/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02256-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Montoya
Appellant
Robert J. Tansy
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

. FlLBD 

fJnued ·Scattt 

Tench 

C'ounof 

Cir~fr ~ 

MAY 2 5 1990 

~OBERT L. HOECI(E 

CHARLES MONTOYA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT J. TANSY 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk R 

No . 89-2256 

(D. N.M.) 

(No. 89-537-SC) 

Before MCKAY, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Montoya appeals, prose, the dismissal of his claim for 

habeas corpus relief. 

* 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: 89-2256 Document: 01019970523 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 1 
• 

Mr. Montoya is confined by the State of New Mexico following 

his jury conviction and is serving an eighteen-month sentence for 

fraud, consecutive to a one-year sentence imposed under New 

Mexico's Habitual Offender Statute. 

Mr. Montoya filed his application for habeas corpus relief 

under 28 u.s.c. S 2254. Mr. Montoya asserted one claim for relief 

alleging that he had been denied due process when the state 

applied to the New Mexico Supreme Court for an extension of time 

in which to bring him to trial and a supreme court clerk allegedly 

failed to deliver Mr. Montoya's objection to the State's petition 

to the justice who made the decision. 

The district court referred the matter to a 

following the state's answer. The magistrate found: 

magistrate 

that while 

Mr. Montoya was awaiting trial the state sought and obtained three 

extensions of the time in which defendant must be tried under New 

Mexico law; that New Mexico law provides an accused can interpose 

objections to sought extensions; that Mr. Montoya contended that 

he was denied due process of law when a supreme court clerk failed 

to make timely delivery of Mr. Montoya's objections to the state 

motion which was considered ex parte by a justice of the court; 

that Mr. Montoya did not claim the extension of time, which he 

opposed, would not have been granted had his objection been 

received; the magistrate furthermore took judicial notice of the 

fact that requests for extension are routinely granted by the New 

Mexico Supreme Court. The magistrate further found that Mr. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2256 Document: 01019970523 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 2 
. 

I 

~ 

Montoya had shown no prejudice which resulted from the late 

delivery of his objection and that no violation of Mr. Montoya's 

right to a speedy trial occurred and concluded that Mr. Montoya's 

claim is no more than a claim of state procedural error which 

standing alone did not present a federal question cognizable in a 

federal habeas corpus suit. Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839 (10th 

Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047 (1980). The magistrate 

recommended that the petition should be dismissed with prejudice. 

Mr. Montoya filed his objections to the recommendations and 

requested appointment of counsel. 

The district court made a de novo determination of the 

magistrate's findings and recommended disposition and adopted the 

magistrate's findings and recommended disposition and denied to 

appoint counsel for Mr. Montoya. 

Mr. Montoya appeals this decision to this court raising two 

issues: 

1. Was Mr. Montoya prejudiced in the state court action by 

the supreme court clerk misplacing his objection and not 

allowing the supreme court justice to have it during the 

moment of his decision? 

2. Did the magistrate and federal district judge abuse 

their discretion in not appointing counsel for Mr. Montoya? 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2256 Document: 01019970523 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 3 
It is interesting to note that Mr. Montoya has never asserted 

in any state court that he was denied a speedy trial due to the 

extension received by the state and the United States Magistrate 

specifically determined that no speedy trial question was 

implicated in this case. 

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the decision of the 

district court and can find no error. 

show that he was in any way prejudiced 

state's third requested extension. 

Mr. Montoya has failed to 

by the granting of the 

It should be noted in 

reviewing the record on appeal that Mr. Montoya was indicted on 9 

July 1985 and in August and September of 1985 Mr. Montoya's 

counsel filed two requests to extend the time to file pretrial 

motions although none were subsequently filed. It should also be 

noted that the record indicates that Mr. Montoya had numerous 

attorneys enter their appearance for him in state court and then 

withdraw. The date of Mr. Montoya's trial was August 12, 1986, 

and the jury found him guilty on August 13, 1986. 

Mr. Montoya having failed to show that he was in any way 

prejudiced or that the state supreme court would not have granted 

the extention, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

We therefore conclude that Mr. Montoya be granted permission 

to proceed in forma pauperis and finding no error, the decision of 

the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2256 Document: 01019970523 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 4 
• 

' .. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2256 Document: 01019970523 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 5