Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-06245/USCOURTS-ca10-24-06245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Jerome Dennis
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: JOSEPH JEROME DENNIS, 

 Movant.

No. 24-6245

(D.C. No. 5:00-CV-00658-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HARTZ, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Joseph Jerome Dennis, proceeding pro se, seeks authorization to file a second or 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. For the following reasons, we deny 

authorization.

In 1996, an Oklahoma jury convicted Mr. Dennis of first-degree murder for 

shooting an auto mechanic in Chickasha, Oklahoma. The state trial court sentenced him 

to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals (OCCA) upheld his conviction on direct appeal. He then filed an application for 

state post-conviction relief, which the state district court denied, and the OCCA affirmed 

the denial.

Mr. Dennis filed a § 2254 habeas application, which the federal district court 

denied. He attempted to appeal from the denial, but we denied him a certificate of 

appealability (COA).

Mr. Dennis now seeks authorization to file a second or successive habeas 

application. To obtain authorization, he must make a prima facie showing that:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 5, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-6245 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 1
2

A) . . . the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable; or

(B)(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); see also Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1026-28 (10th Cir. 2013) 

(discussing prima facie showing).

Mr. Dennis attempts to raise claims that rely on newly discovered evidence 

relating to his request for DNA testing. He states he filed a motion in state court 

requesting forensic DNA testing of evidence used in his case, including a .45-caliber 

bullet, but the court denied his motion and the OCCA upheld the denial. Mr. Dennis

explains that at the 2023 hearing on his motion seeking DNA testing, the state informed 

the court it could not find any of the evidence used in the case to perform further testing. 

He claims the State of Oklahoma deprived him of due process and equal protection by 

preventing him from demonstrating his innocence through DNA testing. 

The evidence at trial against Mr. Dennis included his confession. He said he 

pulled his gun but did not point it at the victim. He told the victim “not to make him do 

this” and to fix his girlfriend’s car. Dennis v. State, 990 P.2d 277, 279 (Okla. Crim. App. 

1999). The victim then grabbed the gun, and it went off. See id. The bullet entered the 

victim’s forehead between his eyes, killing him instantly. It “apparently then went 

through a wall clock and the metal building wall and landed well away from the building, 

Appellate Case: 24-6245 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 2
3

where police later found it.” Id. In addition, witnesses saw Mr. Dennis driving the 

victim’s car afterwards and pulling the garage doors shut. 

Mr. Dennis now argues that DNA testing would have shown that the bullet did not 

cause the victim’s death, that Chickasha police officers altered the crime scene, and that 

the state knowingly presented false testimony from a witness who testified he saw 

Mr. Dennis with a .45-caliber pistol. But in light of the evidence described above, he 

fails to explain how DNA testing, even if performed, would have established “by clear 

and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would 

have found [him] guilty” of the murder. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). 

The motion for authorization fails to make the required prima facie showing based 

on newly discovered evidence. We therefore deny authorization. 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

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 24-6245 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 12/05/2024 Page: 3