Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-02303/USCOURTS-ca10-09-02303-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
Appellee
Allen Cooper
Appellee
Linda Henning
Appellant

Document Text:

*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 7, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LINDA HENNING, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

ALLEN COOPER, Warden;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 09-2303

(Case No. 08-CV-00328-RB-LFG)

(D.N.M.)

 

ORDER*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to

appeal the district court’s denial of her § 2254 habeas petition. Petitioner was

convicted by a jury of felony murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit

kidnapping, criminal solicitation, perjury, tampering with evidence, and

conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence. She was sentenced to a total

sentence of life plus 43.5 years. On appeal, her perjury convictions were reversed

for lack of adequate notice, but her other convictions were affirmed. Petitioner’s

Appellate Case: 09-2303 Document: 01018435457 Date Filed: 06/07/2010 Page: 1
-2-

state habeas petition was denied by the state district court, and the state supreme

court denied her petition for certiorari. 

Petitioner then filed the instant federal habeas petition. In it, she asserted

four broad grounds for relief: (1) denial of due process and a fair trial based on

the state courts’ actions, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) prosecutorial

misconduct, and (4) insufficiency of the evidence. Each of these broad claims

included a large number of related and unrelated subclaims. The magistrate judge

individually considered each of the approximately 219 separate claims he

identified in the petition. He concluded that several claims had not been

exhausted in the state court but numerous other claims had been exhausted and

should be considered on the merits. The district court independently scoured the

record and dismissed approximately seventy claims for failure to exhaust. The

magistrate judge then considered the merits of each exhausted claim, ultimately

recommending dismissal of each on the merits. After conducting a de novo

review of the record and considering Petitioner’s objections, the district court

adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommended disposition. The

district court denied Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, holding there

was no factual conflict material to resolution of the case.

After an exhaustive review of Petitioner’s filings and the extensive record

on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district

court’s resolution of any of Petitioner’s claims, either on procedural grounds or

Appellate Case: 09-2303 Document: 01018435457 Date Filed: 06/07/2010 Page: 2
-3-

on the merits. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We, likewise,

see no error in the district court’s rejection of Petitioner’s request for an

evidentiary hearing. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the

magistrate judge and district court in their admirably thorough rulings in this

case, we DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and

DISMISS the appeal. We GRANT Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. All other pending motions are DENIED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-2303 Document: 01018435457 Date Filed: 06/07/2010 Page: 3