Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-20-01155/USCOURTS-ca10-20-01155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Duray Portley-El
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: PATRICK DURAY PORTLEY-EL, 

 Movant.

No. 20-1155

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01309-ZLW)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, MATHESON and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Patrick Duray Portley-El, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks 

authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. We 

deny authorization.

Mr. Portley-El seeks to file a § 2254 application challenging his convictions 

and sentences in two Colorado cases (case numbers 88CR1555 and 89CR430). He 

filed two § 2254 applications in 2009. The first sought to challenge his convictions 

in those and three other Colorado cases. The district court dismissed it without 

prejudice because it challenged judgments entered in more than one court, in 

violation of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 

Courts. The second § 2254 application sought to challenge only the two convictions 

at issue here. The district court dismissed it as procedurally barred on the ground 

that Mr. Portley-El had failed to exhaust state court remedies before filing his federal 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 27, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 20-1155 Document: 010110339613 Date Filed: 04/27/2020 Page: 1
2

habeas petition. We denied his request for a certificate of appealability as to both 

district court orders. See Portley-El v. Brill, 380 F. App’x 744, 747 (10th Cir. 2010). 

Mr. Portley-El now seeks authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 

application with six claims for relief: (1) that in Case No. 89CR430, he was 

promised during plea negotiations that the sentences imposed for the two offenses 

would run concurrently but the court imposed consecutive sentences; (2) the 

sentences imposed for the two counts he pleaded guilty to in Case No. 88CR1555 

were illegally aggravated and were the product of vindictiveness following his 

successful appeal of his initial conviction of those and additional offenses; (3) the 

sentencing court engaged in “impermissible double counting” in Case No. 88CR1555

by enhancing his sentence under the state’s crime of violence statute based on the 

same conduct that satisfied one of the elements of the underlying offense; (4) the 

sentencing court in Case No. 89CR430 lacked jurisdiction to impose a sentence under 

the state crime of violence statute; (5) his attorney in Case No. 89CR430 was 

ineffective for failing to follow through on a motion for sentence reduction that was 

later deemed abandoned; and (6) his rights to a speedy trial were violated in Case No. 

88CR1555. These are essentially the same claims he unsuccessfully sought 

authorization to raise in 2012. See In re Portley-El, No. 12-1149, Order at 4-5 

(10th Cir. May 9, 2012) (denying authorization to raise these and two additional 

proposed claims).

To be eligible to file a successive application, Mr. Portley-El must show that 

his proposed claims rely on either newly discovered facts demonstrating his innocence or 

Appellate Case: 20-1155 Document: 010110339613 Date Filed: 04/27/2020 Page: 2
3

a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactively applicable 

to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), (2)(B). But in his motion for 

authorization, when asked whether his claims rely on a new rule of law or newly 

discovered evidence, he checked the boxes next to “NO.” Mot. for Auth. at 12-13, 

16, 18-21. And his lengthy proposed district court motion cites no new rule of 

retroactively-applicable constitutional law and no new facts, much less new facts that 

would establish his actual innocence. 

Moreover, a claim that has been presented in a prior § 2254 application is not 

eligible for authorization, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), and most of Mr. Portley-El’s 

proposed claims are the same as or similar to claims he raised in his initial § 2254

applications. See Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, Portley-El v. Brill, No. 09-CV-01309 (D. Colo. June 4, 2009), ECF No. 1; 

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Portley-El v. 

Brill, No. 09-CV-01310 (D. Colo. June 4, 2009), ECF No. 1. 

Because Mr. Portley-El has not met the standards for authorization in § 2244(b), 

we deny his motion. 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: 20-1155 Document: 010110339613 Date Filed: 04/27/2020 Page: 3