Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02061/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General For The State of New Mexico
Appellee
Erasmo Bravo
Appellee
Shawn Louis Jacobs
Appellant

Document Text:

Rick Looney, Warden, Torrance County Detention Facility, is substituted *

upon petitioner’s motion in place of Erasmo Bravo, Acting Warden, Lea County

Correctional Facility. See Dalton v. Battaglia, 402 F. 3d 729, 729 n.* (7th Cir.

2005). 

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of †

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 12, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN LOUIS JACOBS,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 07-2061

v. District of New Mexico

RICK LOONEY, Warden,*

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Respondents-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 04-CV-551-MV)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY†

Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Shawn Louis Jacobs, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate

of appealability (COA) that would allow him to appeal from the district court’s

order denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A). Because we conclude that Mr. Jacobs has failed to make “a

Appellate Case: 07-2061 Document: 010130830 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 1
-2-

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2), we deny his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.

I. Background

Mr. Jacobs was convicted of murder, kidnaping, and several other offenses

in connection with the shooting of an eighteen-year old woman. On October 24,

1994, the victim accepted a ride home from a man driving a green Jeep, who was

later identified by two witnesses as Mr. Jacobs. That evening, a passerby

discovered a green Jeep in a ravine and the victim’s body nearby. The victim had

been shot in the back of the head and there was a large amount of black powder

residue around the entrance wound. There was also evidence of sexual assault. 

The victim’s Dallas Cowboys jacket, crucifix, and “eight-ball” tee shirt that

witnesses testified the victim had with her on the day of her death were not at the

scene. The jury heard testimony that the Jeep found near the victim had been

stolen from a local dealership and that Mr. Jacobs was seen driving a green Jeep

during the two days preceding the murder.

Mr. Jacobs had been released from prison three days prior to the murder

and was living at his father’s house. After the murder the police began

surveillance on Mr. Jacobs’ father’s house and observed Mr. Jacobs with a Dallas

Cowboys jacket. Two days following the murder, Mr. Jacobs gave the victim’s

crucifix to a woman. The police then arrested Mr. Jacobs and conducted a

protective sweep of the house. After the arrest, the officers obtained a search

Appellate Case: 07-2061 Document: 010130830 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 2
-3-

warrant for the home and recovered a Dallas Cowboys jacket and “eight-ball” tee

shirt. They also found a black-powder pistol under the lining of a waterbed, and

DNA testing indicated that blood on the muzzle of the pistol was likely the

victim’s. While Mr. Jacobs was incarcerated pending trial, he attempted to

escape from custody. The incident gave rise to an additional indictment. 

The jury found Mr. Jacobs guilty of first-degree murder, kidnaping,

attempted second-degree criminal sexual penetration, armed robbery, two counts

of tampering with evidence, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, receiving or

transferring a stolen vehicle, possession of a firearm or other destructive device

by a felon, escape from jail, and escape from a peace officer. The court sentenced

him to death plus sixty-nine years and six months in prison. On appeal, the New

Mexico Supreme Court affirmed his conviction but reversed the death sentence. 

State v. Jacobs, 10 P.3d 127 (N.M. 2000). On remand, the court sentenced Mr.

Jacobs to life imprisonment plus sixty-nine years and six months. 

After unsuccessfully challenging his conviction through state habeas, Mr.

Jacobs filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the district court for the

District of New Mexico. On March 30, 2006, the district court denied the petition

and dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Jacobs filed a notice of appeal in the district

court on June 1, 2006. This Court dismissed the appeal as untimely because the

notice had not been filed within thirty days of the date of entry of judgment. 

Order, No. 06-2162.

Appellate Case: 07-2061 Document: 010130830 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 3
-4-

Mr. Jacobs then filed a motion asking the district court to reopen the time

to file an appeal under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

claiming that he had not received notice of the March 30 judgment until May 26,

2006. On January 31, 2007, the district court granted the motion to reopen the

time to file an appeal under Rule 4(a)(6). On April 19, 2007, the district court

ruled that the granting of the motion to reopen retroactively validated the notice

of appeal filed by Mr. Jacobs on June 1, 2006. 

II. Discussion

The denial of a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may be appealed

only if the district court or this Court first issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order

to make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists

could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different

manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

As a preliminary matter, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court

in granting Mr. Jacobs’ Rule 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time to file an appeal.

Our decision in Hinton v. City of Elwood, 997 F.2d 774, 777–79 (10th Cir. 1993)

supports the proposition that an otherwise untimely notice of appeal can be

Appellate Case: 07-2061 Document: 010130830 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 4
-5-

validated retroactively by the court’s granting of a motion to reopen. We

therefore have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion for COA.

Mr. Jacobs raises seven claims in his COA petition: (1) that his separate

convictions and sentences for felony murder, kidnaping, and attempted criminal

sexual penetration violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; (2) that the District

Attorney tampered with evidence during the trial and knowingly used false

evidence; (3) that certain evidence gathered by the police was illegally obtained

and ought to have been suppressed; (4) that the court deprived him of a fair trial

by trying the escape charges along with the primary offenses; (5) that the court

deprived him of a fair and impartial jury by excusing four prospective jurors

based on their religious beliefs; (6) that the court erred in adding thirty-seven

years to his sentence under the New Mexico habitual offender statute; and (7) that

his attorneys’ failure to adequately discuss the case with him, refusal to call

witnesses and ask questions of witnesses at Mr. Jacobs’ request, and expressions

of contempt towards Mr. Jacobs constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr.

Jacobs also contends that the cumulative effect of these alleged trial defects

amounts to fundamental error. 

Mr. Jacobs’s claim that the court improperly increased his sentence under

the New Mexico habitual offender statute is based on the contention that his prior

felony convictions included offenses for which he was not indicted. He argues

that enhancement of his current sentence based on these supposedly illegal

Appellate Case: 07-2061 Document: 010130830 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 5
-6-

convictions violates his constitutional due process rights. However, the Supreme

Court has held that “[i]f . . . a prior conviction used to enhance a federal sentence

is no longer open to attack in its own right because the defendant failed to pursue

those remedies while they were available (or because he did so unsuccessfully),

then . . . [t]he defendant may not collaterally attack his prior conviction through a

motion under § 2255.” Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 375 (2001). The

Court subsequently extended this holding to cover § 2254 petitions directed at

enhanced state sentences. Lackawanna County Dist. Att’y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394,

402 (2001). Accordingly, no reasonable jurist could dispute the district court’s

resolution of this issue. 

The magistrate judge thoughtfully considered and thoroughly addressed the

remainder of the issues in the proposed findings and recommended disposition,

which were adopted by the district court, and found that the rejection of these

claims by the New Mexico Supreme Court and state habeas court did not

constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. We

have carefully examined Mr. Jacobs’ arguments in this court in light of the record

below, and conclude that no reasonable jurist could dispute the district court’s

resolution of Mr. Jacobs’ habeas petition.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we DENY the request for a COA and

DISMISS this appeal. Petitioner’s “Motion to Correct the Respondents [sic]

Appellate Case: 07-2061 Document: 010130830 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 6
-7-

Name” is GRANTED. Mr. Jacobs has also filed a “Motion to Propel the Court”

to consider his arguments. That motion is GRANTED; we have considered his

arguments and have concluded that he is not entitled to further relief. 

Entered for the Court,

Michael W. McConnell

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-2061 Document: 010130830 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 7