Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08042/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08042-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudolfo Aguilar
Appellant
Attorney General of the State of Wyoming
Appellee
Duane Shillinger
Appellee

Document Text:

" 

FILED 

Unittd States Court of Appeals 

TemhCimi.ir 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 2 .~ 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

RUDOLFO AGUILAR, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DUANE SHILLINGER, Warden; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-8042 

(D. Wyoming} 

(D.C. No. M89-030} 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant appeals prose the district court's dismissal of 

appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The order 

* 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: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 1 
dismissing the petition was entered on May 4, 1989, and on May 11, 

1989, appellant filed a notice of appeal. The district court 

denied appellant the required certificate of probable cause to 

appeal in its order dated May 23, 1989. As required under Fed. R. 

App. P. 22(b), the district court set forth its reasons for the 

denial of the certificate, stating that it found the application 

frivolous and without merit. 

Appellant was convicted of one count of kidnapping and one 

count of aggravated assault and battery and sentenced to two 

concurrent five-to-eight year terms in the Wyoming State 

Penitentiary. Petitioner appealed his sentence and conviction to 

the Wyoming State Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court in 

Aguilar v. State, 764 P.2d 684 (Wyo. 1988). 

The petition before the district court was based on three 

arguments: (1) that it was reversible error for the state 

district court to refuse to allow petitioner's attorney to impeach 

a certain witness using certain evidence offered at trial1 ; (2) 

that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel 

insofar as the attorney in question failed to subpoena a witness 

whose testimony allegedly would have caused a different outcome in 

the case; and (3) that it was reversible error for the Wyoming 

1 This argument is precisely the same argument advanced by 

appellant before the Wyoming Supreme Court in appellant's direct 

appeal of his convictions. That court concluded that "[w]hat 

occurred did not have a substantial impact on the trial or 

affect a substantial right of Appellant. Appellant's attorney was 

not prevented from impeaching the witness." Aguilar v. State, 764 

P.2d at 688-89. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 2 
Supreme Court to dismiss the issue of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. The district court discussed each argument in denying 

the writ. 

Rule 22(b) provides that when the detention complained of in 

a district court proceeding arises out of process issued by a 

state court, appeal by the applicant may not proceed unless a 

district court judge issues a certificate of probable cause. See 

also 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If the district court judge denies the 

certificate, the notice of appeal from denial of a writ of habeas 

corpus shall constitute a request to this court for a certificate 

of probable cause. Rule 22(b). However, the issuance or denial 

of a certificate of probable cause is left to the sound discretion 

of the district judge. Herrera v. Payne, 673 F.2d 307, 308 (10th 

Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we will not reverse the district court's 

determination absent an abuse of discretion. 

The lower federal courts have articulated various standards 

for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause to appeal. 

See Alexander v. Harris, 595 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir. 1979). Most of 

those standards focus on whether the applicant has presented a 

substantial question or whether there is any basis for appeal. We 

have studied the briefs and the record in this case and note that 

appellant's brief restates the same arguments 

before the district court. Appellant has 

attempt to address the substance of the 

that he advanced 

made absolutely no 

district court's 

determinations nor has he assigned any specific error to the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 3 
district court. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in this case, and the order of the 

district court denying a certificate of probable cause to appeal 

to this court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 4 
~ ... . . ,. . - ..... , - ; ; .,. • ._ I ) 

' . ,___ :__I_) 

; : ·: - ... , .. 1 ., ·~· . - I• I • • . ' • : •1: ,..._ ~ • , f ._, ; ~ r : -: • , . , J 

; :' !.. : .. . • :< ·_;. i ~~ ' .. : :.'~ ;·1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

r' ::,-- ; l., ._ --1 \{ ' 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

RUDOLFO AGUILAR, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

DUANE SHILLINGER and the ATTORNEY) 

GENERAL of the State of Wyoming, ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

No. M89-O3O 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

The above-entitled matter having come before this Court 

upon a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the Court having 

carefully reviewed the petition, and all material on file herein, 

and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS: 

Petitioner was convicted of one count of kidnapping and 

one count of aggravated assault and battery and sentenced to two 

five to eight year terms in the Wyoming State Penitentiary, the 

terms to run concurrently. Petitioner appealed his sentence and 

conviction to the Wyoming State Supreme Court which affirmed the 

trial court in the case of Aguilar v. State, 764 P.2d 684 (Wyo. 

1988). Petitioner also moved for a reduction of the sentence in 

the trial court which was denied. 

-1-

3 

Appellate Case: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 5 
The petition for writ of habeas corpus before this Court 

is based upon the petitioner's allegations that it was reversible 

error for the district court to refuse to allow an attorney to 

impeach a witness at trial, that the petitioner was denied 

effective assistance of counsel insofar as the attorney in 

question failed to subpoena a witness whose testimony would have 

allegedly caused a different outcome of the case, and that it was 

reversible error for the Wyoming Supreme Court to dismiss the 

issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

To successfully assert a claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel, a petitioner "must satisfy a two-part test to 

establish a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Mosier v. Murphy, 

790 F.2d 62 (10th Cir. 1986). First, he must show that his 

attorney did not provide reasonably effective assistance. In 

addition, petitioner must show prejudice. He must show that but 

for the errors of counsel, the result of the proceedings would 

have been different.'' Osborn v. Schillinger, 639 F.Supp. 610, 

615 (D.Wyo. 1986) (citations omitted). 

Petitioner has not alleged a factual basis to support 

his allegation that he was denied ineffective assistance of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 6 
counsel. Neither has the petitioner given any factual basis for 

his claim that "but for the errors of the counsel the result of 

the proceedings would have been different." 

Merely conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance 

of counsel will not support a habeas corpus petition unless the 

petitioner alleges that the failure of counsel affected the 

outcome of the case and that prejudice resulted. Petitioner 

alleges that his attorney failed to subpoena a witness whose 

testimony would have caused a different outcome of the case. In 

Davison v. State of Oklahoma, 428 F.Supp. 34 (W.D.Okla. 1976), a 

habeas corpus petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney refused to subpoena a certain 

witness. The Davison court specifically noted that "[t]he 

failure to call witnesses by an attorney on the basis of his 

trial tactics and best judgment is not a constitutional violation 

and does not entitle a petitioner federal habeas corpus relief." 

Id. at 36. Additionally, the Davis court noted that 

"[c]onclusory allegations that counsel failed to call certain 

witnesses without indicating what the testimony would have been, 

how it might have affected the outcome of the case or what 

prejudice may have resulted from the failure to call them simply 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 7 
do not support a denial of the effective assistance of counsel.'' 

Id. 

- With regard to petitioner's assertion that it was 

reversible error for the trial court to refuse to allow the 

defense to impeach a witness, it is clear that questions 

concerning the admissibility of evidence are matters of state law 

which will support a petition for habeas corpus relief only if 

they were of such magnitude as to amount to a denial of fundamental fairness. Jeffers v. Ricketts, 627 F.Supp. 1334 (D.Ariz. 

1986), Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) and Perry 

v. Rushen, 713 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Though a state court's evidentiary rulings may be 

reversed for a denial of fundamental fairness, the general rule 

"'remains intact that evidentiary questions are not subject to 

review by a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding by a 

state prisoner unless there is an error of such magnitude as to 

deny fundamental fairness •• In this area, federal courts 

must proceed with caution •••• To hold otherwise would put 

federal courts in the role of reviewing courts over the courts of 

the states even when no constitutional errors have been made."' 

Gross v. Greer, 773 F.2d 116 (7th Cir. 1985) (quoting United 

States ex rel. Bibbs v. Twomey, 506 F.2d 1220 (7th Cir. 1974)). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 8 
Petitioner has failed to allege any factual basis in 

support of his assertion that the trial court's ruling to not 

allow impeachment of a witness amounted to constitutional error. 

Finally, petitioner urges that it was reversible error 

for the Wyoming Supreme Court to dismiss the issue of ineffective 

assistance of counsel in his appeal to that court. Such an 

assertion is clearly frivolous and devoid of merit in that 

petitioner raises no rational argument based in fact or law to 

support his petition. Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260 (10th 

Cir. 1976); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ 

of habeas corpus be, and the same is, hereby denied without 

prejudice; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis be, and 

DATED this 

the same is, hereby denied. 

:-/ 71/day of May, 1989 . ____ _ 

// 

ISTRICT JUDGE 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-8042 Document: 01019966695 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 9