Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-02167/USCOURTS-ca10-14-02167-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luciano P. Guerra
Appellant
James Janecka
Appellee
Gary K. King
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 12, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LUCIANO P. GUERRA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JAMES JANECKA, Warden; GARY

K. KING, New Mexico Attorney

General,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 14-2167

(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00734-LH-CG)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on Luciano P. Guerra’s pro se request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”). Guerra seeks a COA so he can appeal the

district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because Guerra has not “made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), this court denies his

request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.

A jury convicted Guerra in New Mexico state court on one count of first

degree murder. After exhausting his state court remedies, Guerra filed the instant

§ 2254 habeas petition raising the following three claims: (1) counsel failed to

Appellate Case: 14-2167 Document: 01019429530 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 1 
investigate and present an intoxication defense; (2) his conviction was not

supported by sufficient evidence: and (3) he was entitled to a jury instruction on

his theory of self-defense. The district court resolved these claims on the merits,

concluding as follows: (1) counsel’s strategic choice to advance a self-defense

theory, instead of an intoxication defense, was not unreasonable; (2) there was

sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (3) the jury was provided with a

self-defense instruction. In his brief on appeal and request for a COA, Guerra

does not challenge any of the district court’s conclusions summarized above. 

Instead, he raises two claims not advanced below. First, he asserts he was denied

his constitutional right to compulsory process and effective assistance of counsel

because counsel failed to: (1) object when the state called Sandy Loomis as a fact

witness and (2) call Richard Rees in support of a self-defense theory. Second, he

asserts the prosecutor committed misconduct when he claimed during closing

argument that the evidence demonstrated the victim’s arm was pinned over his

head. This court does not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. 

Fairchild v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2009).

Because Guerra has not asked for a COA as to the issues he raised below,

and because this court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal,

we DENY his request for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (holding that the grant of a COA is a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2167 Document: 01019429530 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 2 
jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal from the dismissal of a § 2254 petition).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2167 Document: 01019429530 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 3