P u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 3 (c)(2), Joh n W . S u thers, K en S alaz ar’s * su c c e ss o r, h a s b e e n a u to m a tica llysu b stitu ted a s a p a rtyto th is a p p e a l. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly7,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RO NA LD G . PI ERCE, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. R I C K A . SO A R E S, O r dw ay Co rr e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty , a n d J OHN W . SU T H E R S, the A t t orney G ener al of the St at e of Col or ado, * R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 1458 ( D . C ol or ado) ( D . C. N o. 02 - CV - 14 87 - EW N - O ES)

OR DER B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. R on al d G . P i erce, a C olor ado st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on di s m i s s i ng hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , bas ed on var i ous al l eged fai l ur es t o i nves t i gat e hi s m ent al capa ci ty , al l egat i ons of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , pr os ecut or i al m i s conductand purpor t ed v i o l a t i o n s o f

h i s p l e a a g r e e me n t . M r . P i e r c e a l s o s e e k s t o p r o c e e d i n fo r ma2

pauper i s ( “I FP”) . B eca us e w e det erm i ne thathe has notm ade “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) , w e deny hi s r eques tfora C O A and di s m i s s the mat t er . W e gr anthi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d I FP. I . BA CK GR OUND I n J une 1988, M r . Pi er ce pl eade d gui l tyt o tw o count s of fe l onym ur der w ith stip u late d c o n se c u tiv e life se n ten c e s, in e x c h a n g e fo r th e g o v e rn m e n t to w i thdr aw i t s r eques tforthe dea th penal ty . T he pl ea a gr eementi ncl uded an ag ree m en t th at i f M r. P ierce c o o p era ted w ith the d istri ct att o rne y ’s office ’s i nves t i gat i on r egar di ng otheri nvol ved part i es , and t es t i fi ed t o thatr egar d, thatthe di s tr i ctatt orneyw oul d notobj ectt o M r . Pi er ce’ s r eques tthatthe s ent ence s run concurr ent l y . D ur i ng the cour s e of the pl ea ne got i at i ons , M r . Pi er ce w as re p re se n ted b yth re e se p a ra te a tto rn e y s. M r. P ier c e d id n o t file a d ire c t ap p e a l. In M a rc h 1 9 8 9 , M r. P ier c e filed a p o stc o n v ictio n m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is gui l typl eas pur s uantt o C ol o. R . C r i m . P. 35( c) , al l egi ng i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n s e l a n d c h a l l e n g i n g th e v a l i d i tyo f h i s g u i l typ l e a . Ov e rth e n e x td e c a d e , two s epar at e att orney s w er e appoi nt ed t o as s i s tM r . Pi er ce. T he fi r s tatt orneyw as al l ow ed t o w i thdr aw i n 1996, and the s econd i n 1999. T her eaf t er , M r . Pi er ce pr ocee ded pr o s e, and fi l ed anotherpos t convi ct i on m ot i on thatal l eged he w as leg a llyin c o m p e ten t to p ro c e e d . A f ter tw o h e a rin g s a n d a m e n tal h e a lth ex am ination , M r. P ierce w as d eterm ined to b e leg all yco m p eten t t o p roc ee d . In3

2000, the tr i al courtconduct ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng on the or i gi nal R ul e 35( c) m o tio n a n d d e n ied it o n th e m e rits. In 2 0 0 1 , the C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls affirm ed the tri al co u rt , an d o n A p ri l 29 , 2 0 0 2 , the C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rt d e n ie d M r. P ie rc e ’s p e titio n fo r a w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri . O n A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 , M r. P ie rc e file d a tim e ly p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254, al l egi ng fi ve err or s r el at ed t o hi s pl ea ba r gai n: 1. vi ol at i ons of hi s Fi fth, Si xth and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s w hen the trial ju d g e , p ro se c u tin g a tto rn e ya n d d e fe n se c o u n se l fa iled to p ro p e rlyin v e stig a te hi s m ent al s t at e of mi nd befor e he e nt er ed the pl ea ba r gai n, 2. deni al of the r i ghtt o effect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el w hen couns el fai l ed t o ( a) i nves t i gat e the ca s e, ( b) s ecur e expe r tt es t i m ony , ( c) r eques teval uat i on of hi s m ent al s t at e, and ( d) w hen tr i al couns el funct i oned as a “thi r d arm ” forthe pr os ecut i on, 3. deni al of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w hen the tr i al courtfai l ed t o det erm i ne thathi s gui l typl eas w er e know i ngl y , vol unt ar i l y , and i nt el l i gent l ym ade, 4 . v io latio n o f

h is rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss w h e n th e p ro se c u tio n (a ) fa iled to fol l ow the pr ovi s i ons of the pl ea a gr eement , ( b) fai l ed t o i nqui r e i nt o hi s m ent al funct i oni ng, and ( c) w hen the pr os ecut i on coer ced hi m i nt o pl eadi ng gui l ty , and 5. deni al of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w hen the tr i al courtdeni ed hi m ( a) couns el in h is p o stc o n v ictio n h e a rin g s, a n d (b ) th e rig h t to tes tifyd u e to th e re f u sa l to a p p o in t ad v iso ryc o u n se l.4

T he s t at e ar gued thatM r . Pi er ce di d notexhaus thi s fi nal cl ai m . T he m agi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended di s m i s s al of ea ch of the above cl ai m s , and r ecomm ended the deni al of habe as r el i ef. H e found the fi fth cl ai m m er i t l es s and d is m is s e d it w ith o u t r e fe re n c e to e x h a u s tio n . See Moor e v. Schoem an , 288 F. 3d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, and deni ed M r . Pi er ce’ s appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty . M r . Pi er ce c an onl ypr evai l on thos e cl ai m s i n thi s fede r al habea s p ro c e e d in g if

h e c a n d e m o n stra te th a t th e sta te c o u rt’s r u lin g , reje c tin g e a c h o f h is c laim s, w a s “ c o n tra ryto , o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f, cle a rly es t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , ” or“w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the e v iden ce p rese n ted in the s tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ), (2). Fo r sub stan ti all ythe s am e re aso n s p rov ided in the m ag istrate jud g e’s tho rou g h an d w ell -reaso n ed rep o rtan d rec o m m en d ati o n , w e reject M r. P ierce’s a rg u m e n ts . I I . DI S CU S S I ON “[U ] nt i l a C O A has been i s s ued, fede r al court s of appe al s l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o rul e on the mer i t s of appe al s forhabea s pet i t i oner s . ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll, 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . A C O A can i s s ue onl y“i f the appl i canthas m ade a5

s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T o d o so , h e m u st d e m o n stra te “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r (o r, fo r th a t m a tter, a g re e th a t) th e p e tit io n sh o u ld h a v e b e e n re so lv e d in a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” S la c kv . McD a n iel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). M r. P ier c e ra ise s th e sa m e fiv e iss u e s b e fo re u s. F irst, as to th e fa ilu re to in v e stig a te M r. P ier c e ’s c o m p e ten c yw h e n h e p lea d e d g u ilty , the sta te c o u rts r evi ew ed eva l uat i ons fr om tw o ps y chi atr i s t s and a ne ur ol ogi s t , w ho found no conce rns aboutM r . Pi er ce’ s m ent al condi t i on. Second, M r . Pi er ce c annot estab li sh ineffe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. “[ T ]he tw o -pa rtStr i ckland v. Was hi ngt on, [466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) ] t es tappl i es t o chal l enges t o gui l typl eas bas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . ” Hillv . L o c kh a rt, 474 U . S. 52, 58 ( 1985) . “[T] o s at i s fythe ‘ pr ej udi ce’ r equi r ement , the defendantm us ts how that ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s err or s , he w oul d nothave pl eade d gui l tyand w oul d have i ns i s t ed on goi ng t o tr i al . ” Id. at59. W e agr ee w i th the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on that , “[g] i ven the s tr ength of the governm ent ’ s cas e aga i ns t[M r . Pi er ce] , t o i ncl ude the uns uppr es s ed conf es s i on and t es t i m onyof w i tnes s es , the s er i ous nes s of the cr i m es w i th w hi ch [M r . Pi er ce] w a s c h a rg e d , an d th e su c c e ss a t n e g o tiatin g a p lea a g re e m e n t th a t sig n ifica n tly l i m i t ed [hi s ] expos ur e underthe cha r ges , ther e i s no r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat6

[M r . Pi er ce] w oul d have i ns i s t ed on goi ng t o tr i al . ” R ec. vol . I , doc. 27, at14 (R e c o m m e n d a tio n fo r D is m is s a l, file d J u ly 2 , 2 0 0 3 ). T h ird , the trial c o u rt d id in q u ire a s to w h e th e r M r. P ier c e ’s p lea b a rg a in w a s k n o w in g , inte lli g e n t, an d v o lu n tar y , as e v id e n c e d in th e p lea c o llo q u y . A s to M r . Pi er ce’ s four th cont ent i on, al l egi ng pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , the pl ea ag ree m en t do es n o t spe cifythat the g o v ern m en t w as o b li g ed to ap p roa ch M r. Pi er ce w i th r es pectt o the pr os ecut i on of otheri nvol ved part i es . Si m i l ar l y , the re c o rd d o e s n o t su p p o rt M r. P ier c e ’s a lleg a tio n s re g a rd in g c o e rc io n a n d fa ilu re to i nqui r e i nt o hi s m ent al s t at e. Fi nal l y , w e agr ee thatther e i s no cons t i tut i onal r equi r ementforthe appoi nt m entof couns el i n pos t convi ct i on col l at er al p ro c e e d in g s . See Pennsylvani a v. F i nl ey , 4 8 1 U . S . 5 5 1 , 5 5 5 (19 8 7 ). A s su ch , M r. P ie rc e h a s fa ile d to ra is e a c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n . W e h av e c are fu ll yrev iew ed M r. P ierce’s b ri ef, the m ag istrate jud g e’s re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n , d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is p o s itio n , a n d th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l. N othi ng i n the r ecor d on appea l orM r . Pi er ce’ s fi l i ngs r ai s es an i s s ue w hi ch m eet s ours t andar ds forthe gr antof a CO A . Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as s etfor th bythe di s tr i ctcourtand magi s tr at e j udge, w e ca nnots aythatM r . Pi er ce “has m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). I I I . CO NC L US I ON We DE NY Mr . P i e r c e ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra c e r t i fi c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty , GR ANT7

h is m o ti o n to p roc ee d IF P , an d D IS M IS S the m att er. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge