Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-08129/USCOURTS-ca10-15-08129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Levanter DeMillard
Appellant
Steve Hargett
Appellee
Wyoming Attorney General
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 17, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

ERIC LEVANTER DEMILLARD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 15-8129

STEVE HARGETT, Warden,

Wyoming Medium Correctional

Institution; WYOMING ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

Respondents-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00134-ABJ)

(D. Wyo.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 

Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

 

Back in 2001, Petitioner Eric DeMillard, who has a history of mental health

issues, pled guilty in Wyoming state court to one count of burglary and one count of

attempted assault on a peace officer, and nolo contendere to four counts of

interference with child custody. The state court found Petitioner was competent to

proceed and his plea was knowing and voluntary. The history of this case through

mid-August 2013 is set forth in De Millard v. Wyoming, 308 P.3d 825 (Wyo. 2013)

(unsuccessful appeal from an order revoking Petitioner’s probation), and we will

not repeat it here.

Appellate Case: 15-8129 Document: 01019572050 Date Filed: 02/17/2016 Page: 1 
To make a long story short, Petitioner, in 2015, finally sought relief from his

state court convictions via a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Like he tells us, Petitioner told the federal district court that “[i]t is legally

impossible for [him] to be guilty of” (1) attempted assault on a police officer because

he had no firearm in his house at the time of the incident, (2) burglary because the

residence where he held his children was his own, and (3) interference with custody

because the state court had not entered a custody order. In a concise, written order,

the district court held the petition was time-barred:

The Wyoming state district court . . imposed sentence on March 12,

2001. The Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure require an appeal

from a final order to be filed within 30 days. Petitioner did not file an

appeal with the Wyoming Supreme Court, however, the one year

limitations period under [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(d)(1)(A) is tolled during

the period in which the petitioner could have sought an appeal under

state law. The one year period within which Petitioner was required to

file a § 2254 petition thus commenced thirty (30) days after March 12,

2001, on April 12, 2001, and ended one year later, on [Monday] April

15, 2002. The record before the Court fails to reflect a post-conviction

request of any type or nature until Petitioner sought modification of his

probation conditions in 2007.

DeMillard v. Hargett, No. 15-CV-134, Order at 6–7 (D. Wyo., filed Sept. 9, 2015)

(citations and quotation marks omitted). Petitioner now seeks to appeal the district

court’s denial of his § 2254 petition.

Prior to appealing that ruling (or the denial of his subsequent Rule 60(b)

motion to reconsider), however, Petitioner must receive permission from us to do so

in the form of a Certificate of Appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

2

Appellate Case: 15-8129 Document: 01019572050 Date Filed: 02/17/2016 Page: 2 
When the decision appealed from involves a procedural ruling, as it does here, the

court will not issue a COA unless “the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the 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.” United States v. Jack, No. 15-

2001, 2015 WL 6685466, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 3, 2015) (unpublished) (quoting

Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1225 (10th Cir. 2006)).

Petitioner states that on August 19, 2014, the Wyoming Supreme Court issued

an opinion which ended his present state case. See DeMillard v. Wyoming, 332 P.3d

534 (Wyo. 2014) (unsuccessful appeal from the denial of Petitioner’s motion to

correct an illegal sentence). On August 1, 2015, eighteen days before the one-year

anniversary of the Wyoming Supreme Court’s most recent opinion, he submitted his

§ 2254 petition to the district court. But Petitioner is mistaken when he claims the

one-year limitations period set forth in § 2244(d)(1)(A) did not commence to run

until August 19, 2014. The § 2254 petition challenges only Petitioner’s convictions. 

As the district court ably explained, the time clock began to run on the date those

convictions became final by expiration of the time for seeking direct review. That

date was April 12, 2001. Because a reasonable jurist would not debate that the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling, Petitioner, for this (and perhaps

other) reason(s), is not entitled to a COA.

3

Appellate Case: 15-8129 Document: 01019572050 Date Filed: 02/17/2016 Page: 3 
COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

United States Circuit Judge

4

Appellate Case: 15-8129 Document: 01019572050 Date Filed: 02/17/2016 Page: 4