Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01066/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Henson
Appellee
Gale A. Norton
Appellee
Ralph Romero
Appellant

Document Text:

• 

FILED 

Unit.eel States Court of Appcnb 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cif\_,"Uit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OCT O 2 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

RALPH ROMERO, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

HAROLD HENSON; GALE A. NORTON, ) 

Attorney General, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-1066 

(D.C. No. 90-F-550) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition filed 

under 28 u.s.c. S 2254. The district court has denied a 

certificate of probable cause. We also deny a certificate of 

probable cause and dismiss the appeal. 

*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: 91-1066 Document: 010110090726 Date Filed: 10/02/1991 Page: 1 
Petitioner, who was convicted in state court of sexual 

assault of a child, appealed that conviction to the Colorado Court 

of Appeals, raising six issues including those asserted in his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Following affirmance of the 

conviction, petitioner sought further review by certiorari in the 

Colorado Supreme Court. His petition was denied. Thereafter, 

petitioner sought relief in the district court. 

The issues raised by Mr. Romero in federal court are 

identical to the grounds he asserted for reversal in the Colorado 

Court of Appeals. Even in his brief in this court, petitioner has 

failed to assert how two of the errors he protests were committed 

during his state trial are violative of federal law or the United 

States Constitution. 

For example, he argues the evidence was insufficient to 

support his conviction, but he fails to articulate a basis for 

federal jurisdiction to afford him relief on that ground. He also 

asserts he was denied the opportunity to present evidence of his 

intoxication as a defense to the charges, but he does not assert 

how this denial gives rise to habeas jurisdiction. 

Federal courts do not review state convictions for errors in 

state law. We have nonetheless reviewed the entire record and 

conclude the district court did not err in dismissing these 

claims. 

Claims of insufficiency of evidence produced at a state trial 

will give rise to federal habeas corpus only if the court 

determines no rational trier of fact could have found proof of 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented at 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1066 Document: 010110090726 Date Filed: 10/02/1991 Page: 2 
trial. Brecheisen v. Mondragon, 833 F.2d 238, 244 (10th Cir. 

1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1011 (1988). The district court's 

review, as well as ours, demonstrates the existence of conflicting 

evidence, but none that will not support the verdict. 

A review of the state record does not affirmatively establish 

whether petitioner ever attempted to introduce the evidence of his 

intoxication, but that problem notwithstanding, his argument is 

without merit. Whether intoxication is a defense to a state crime 

is a matter of state law. Here the Colorado state courts 

considered and rejected petitioner's claim. We therefore find no 

grounds for federal habeas corpus in this claim. 

Finally, the petitioner contends the statute under which he 

was convicted, Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 18-3-405(1), is unconstitutionally overbroad. Petitioner raised this issue in the Colorado 

Court of Appeals, but 

entertain the claim. 

that court is without jurisdiction 

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-4-102(l)(b). 

to 

The 

Court of Appeals specifically declined to review the issue because 

of its jurisdictional impediment, and petitioner did not take the 

steps necessary to present the issue to the Colorado Supreme 

Court. Respondent therefore correctly asserts petitioner has 

defaulted on this claim and is barred from pursuing it further in 

the absence of a showing of cause, actual prejudice, or a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 111 

S. Ct. 2546, 2565 (1991). He has failed to carry this burden. 

The Supreme Court of Colorado has also held the statute is 

not void for vagueness (or "is not unconstitutionally vague"). 

People v. West, 724 P.2d 623, 628-29 (Colo. 1986). To the extent 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1066 Document: 010110090726 Date Filed: 10/02/1991 Page: 3 
the decision articulates concepts of federal due process, we agree 

with the analysis. 

We therefore conclude petitioner has failed to make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a federal right necessary for 

the issuance of a certificate of probable cause under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983). 

Therefore, petitioner's application for a certificate of probable 

cause is denied, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1066 Document: 010110090726 Date Filed: 10/02/1991 Page: 4