Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01574/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01574-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Padilla
Appellant
State of New Mexico
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FIL U D 

JAN 1 o 1gso 

ROBERT L I-IOECKER 

Clerk 

ANTONIO PADILLA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

Respondent-Appel lee. 

) No. 88-1574 

) (D.C. No. 86-1449M) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for 

federal habeas relief from his state conviction for voluntary 

manslaughter. Petitioner was indicted and tried on a charge of 

murder. At the close of trial, defense counsel requested a jury 

instruction on voluntary manslaughter, arguing, over the 

prosecution's objection, that the manslaughter instruction was 

* 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: 88-1574 Document: 01019959060 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 1 
supported by sufficient evidence adduced 

court gave the requested instruction, and 

petitioner guilty of voluntary manslaughter. 

at trial. The trial 

the jury found 

Before the New Mexico appellate court, petitioner argued the 

trial court committed fundamental error by giving the voluntary 

manslaughter instruction because there was insufficient evidence 

to support the instruction. State v. Padilla, 722 P.2d 697, 699 

(N.M. App.), cert. denied, 721 P.2d 1309 (N.M. 1986). The New 

Mexico appellate court agreed that there was insufficient evidence 

to support the voluntary manslaughter instruction, but upheld 

petitioner's conviction because petitioner had requested the 

instruction. Id. at 700-03. 

Petitioner then filed a federal petition for habeas relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing his conviction was not 

supported by sufficient evidence and was, therefore, violative of 

due process. The district court denied relief, ruling the 

evidence adduced at trial supported petitioner's voluntary 

manslaughter conviction. Petitioner appeals from the district 

court's denial of habeas relief. 

As an initial issue, respondent 

procedurally barred from asserting his § 

argues petitioner is 

2254 claim. A state 

procedural bar will preclude federal habeas review only when the 

state court applies the procedural bar and itself refuses to hear 

the merits of a defendant's claims. See Brasier v. Douglas, 815 

F.2d 64, 65 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023 (1987). 

Because the New Mexico appellate court addressed the merits of 

petitioner's claim, reviewing the record for fundamental error, 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1574 Document: 01019959060 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 2 
federal habeas review is not precluded. See id. {state court 

review for fundamental error is a decision on the merits and will 

not preclude federal habeas review). 

The Constitution guarantees criminal defendants freedom from 

conviction absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element 

of the charged offense. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970); 

see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 309 (1979). Contrary 

to petitioner's assertions, however, a defendant may validly waive 

this constitutional protection. See Poole v. United States, 832 

F.2d 561, 563-65 {11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 54 

(1988); cf. United States v. Frye, 738 F.2d 196, 200 {7th Cir. 

1984){guilty plea waives right to require government to prove each 

element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt). 

During the course of trial, a defendant may be bound by 

defense counsel's strategic waiver of defendant's constitutional 

protections. See,~, Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 451 

(1965); Poole, 832 F.2d at 563-65; see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 

433 U.S. 72, 93 and n.l {1977){Burger, C.J., concurring). In this 

case, defense 

instruction and 

objection, that 

counsel's request for the voluntary manslaughter 

counsel's assertion, over the prosecution's 

sufficient evidence had been adduced at trial to 

support this instruction, was sufficient to waive defendant's 

right to require the state to prove each element of the offense 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf. Poole, 832 F.2d at 563-65. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico denying petitioner § 2254 relief is 

AFFIRMED. See Griess v. Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 1047 {10th Cir. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1574 Document: 01019959060 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 3 
1988)(appellate court may affirm district court's decision based 

on grounds supported by the record but upon which the district 

court did not rely). 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1574 Document: 01019959060 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 4