Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01040/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01040-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Jeffrey McMillian
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

In re: 

CHARLES JEFFREY MCMILLIAN, 

 Movant. 

No. 15-1040 

(D.C. No. 1:05-CV-00985-WDM-MJW) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER 

 

Before KELLY, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Charles Jeffrey McMillian moves for authorization to file a second or 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. We deny authorization. 

 Mr. McMillian pleaded guilty to Colorado charges of conspiracy to commit 

first degree murder, retaliation against a witness, second degree murder, and first 

degree aggravated motor vehicle theft. He later unsuccessfully pursued relief under 

§ 2254, filing two applications that were dismissed without prejudice and then filing 

an application that was dismissed with prejudice for default and failure to exhaust, 

see McMillian v. Carochi, 301 F. App’x 801, 803-05 (10th Cir. 2008). 

 Mr. McMillian now seeks authorization to file a new § 2254 application 

alleging his actual innocence. In support, he presents affidavits from another 

prisoner convicted in connection with the crimes, Ruben Aragon. The affidavits, 

dated June 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, state Mr. Aragon and another man killed the 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 11, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1040 Document: 01019384025 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

victim, without any assistance or knowledge by Mr. McMillian; Mr. Aragon had not 

told Mr. McMillian that the victim was a witness against Mr. Aragon; and 

Mr. McMillian had no knowledge of Mr. Aragon’s criminal activities. The affidavits 

also state Mr. Aragon wanted to kill Mr. McMillian for testifying against him and 

would not have spoken to him earlier, but he had a religiously motivated change of 

heart and wished to declare Mr. McMillian’s innocence. 

 For authorization, Mr. McMillian must show “(i) the factual predicate for the 

claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due 

diligence,” and “(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of 

the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 

the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B). We need 

not consider the first part of the test, because he fails to satisfy the second part. 

 To satisfy § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii), Mr. McMillian must make a showing of “but 

for” constitutional error. See Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1033-34 (10th Cir.) 

(“Section 2244(b)(2)(B) binds together a successive applicant’s claim of actual 

innocence and his claim of constitutional error. . . . Because of the necessary linkage 

between a petitioner’s probable innocence and the alleged constitutional error, the 

inquiry under subparagraph (B)(ii) excludes any consideration of evidence not rooted 

in constitutional error at trial.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)), 

cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 269 (2013); see also id. at 1036 (stating the Supreme Court 

Appellate Case: 15-1040 Document: 01019384025 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

has refused to recognize a habeas claim for “free-standing claims of actual innocence 

even if the conviction and sentence were entirely fair and error free,” and “it is an 

open question whether such a federal right exists” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). 

 The motion for authorization does not identify any potential constitutional 

error that would satisfy this requirement. However, Mr. McMillian’s proposed 

§ 2254 application alleges that counsel was ineffective in not investigating 

Mr. McMillian’s use of the prescription drug Halcion and not withdrawing from the 

representation because Mr. McMillian was taking Halcion, and that Mr. McMillian’s 

guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because of his use of Halcion. But his 

earlier § 2254 motion also contended that counsel was ineffective with regard to 

Mr. McMillian’s use of Halcion and that the guilty plea was not knowing and 

voluntary because of Halcion. See McMillian, 301 F. App’x at 803. Therefore, the 

Halcion-related claims in the proposed § 2254 application are subject to dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), and they will not support authorization. We 

previously denied authorization for these claims for this reason. See In re McMillian, 

No. 10-1098, at 3-4 (10th Cir. Apr. 12, 2010) (unpublished order). 

Appellate Case: 15-1040 Document: 01019384025 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

 The motion for authorization is denied. This denial of authorization “shall not 

be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of 

certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E). 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 15-1040 Document: 01019384025 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 4