UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ALONZO LYDELL MOORE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director, 

Colorado Department of Corrections; 

LAURIE TAFOYA, Warden, San Carlos 

Correctional Facility; CYNTHIA 

COFFMAN, Attorney General, State of 

Colorado, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 17-1346 

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-02518-RPM) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Plaintiff-Appellant Alonzo Lydell Moore seeks a certificate of appealability 

(COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (“Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from . . . the final 

order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out 

of process issued by a State court.”). He also seeks leave to proceed in forma 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 20, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

pauperis. We deny the request for a COA and dismiss this matter, and also deny 

Moore’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

I 

Moore’s trial 

In 1995, when he was approximately 18 years old, Moore was shot in the head. 

He suffered brain damage to his frontal lobe. Two years later, in 1997, he was 

charged with first-degree murder, felony murder, and two counts of burglary after he 

stabbed his ex-girlfriend to death. Moore’s appointed counsel had Moore undergo an 

examination to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. Moore strongly 

opposed the examination. Nonetheless, Moore underwent an examination, which 

produced a report recommending that the trial court find Moore competent to stand 

trial. App. at 137. 

After the examination, but before the ultimate determination of competency, 

Moore sent the trial court judge a letter, asking if he “could get another lawyer.” Id.

at 86. Moore wrote that his attorney was “not taking this case very seriously,” and 

explained that Moore was “very upset because [his] lawyer forced [him] into going to 

the State Hospital for testing, which [he] didn’t need at all.” Id. Eleven days after 

Moore’s letter, the trial judge found Moore competent to stand trial. At the 

competency hearing, Moore repeated his request for new counsel. After asking 

Moore a series of questions about his counsel—but without hearing from Moore’s 

counsel—the judge stated “there is not a sufficient basis for removal” of Moore’s 

counsel. Id. at 121. 
3 

Trial did not begin until approximately 20 months later. Still, Moore 

maintained the same appointed counsel. During jury selection, Moore and his 

counsel disagreed about whether to strike a prospective juror whose mother and 

cousin had been murdered. Eventually, the prospective juror was seated, and was 

part of the jury that found Moore guilty of both first-degree murder and felony 

murder. The trial judge later sentenced Moore to life imprisonment without the 

possibility of parole, a sentence Moore continues to serve.1

Procedural history

 Moore filed a direct appeal. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the firstdegree murder and two burglary convictions, but vacated the felony murder 

conviction. App. at 34–50; People v. Moore, No. 99CA1288, 2002 WL 1764434, at 

*1 (Colo. App. Jan. 17, 2002). The Colorado Supreme Court denied Moore’s petition 

for writ of certiorari. 

In 2002, Moore filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Colorado state 

court under Colorado Crim. P. 35(c). That petition languished unaddressed—despite 

numerous letters from Moore—and Moore eventually filed another petition under 

Crim. P. 35(c) in 2009. See App. at 55. The Colorado state trial court denied the 

2009 petition, concluding that it was a successive petition. On appeal, the Colorado 

Court of Appeals determined that the 2009 petition was indeed a successive petition, 

but noted that the trial court never addressed Moore’s 2002 Crim. P. 35(c) petition. 

 1

 The judge also sentenced Moore to a concurrent term of 12 years for the two 

burglary convictions. App. at 141. 
4 

It remanded to the trial court to consider that 2002 petition. App. at 62–65; People v. 

Moore, No. 09CA1675, 2011 WL 2001937, at *1 (Colo. App. May 19, 2011). 

On remand, the trial court denied Moore’s 2002 Crim. P. 35(c) petition. App. 

at 110–14. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. Id. at 67–82; People 

v. Moore, No. 13CA0988, 2015 WL 1299723, at *1 (Colo. App. Mar. 19, 2015). And 

the Colorado Supreme Court denied Moore’s petition for writ of certiorari. Moore v. 

People, No. 15SC314, 2015 WL 5934719, at *1 (Colo. Oct. 13, 2015). 

Nearly a year later, with the assistance of counsel, Moore filed this motion 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting that the state trial court had denied him his Sixth 

Amendment rights in 1997. The district court denied the motion and denied Moore a 

COA. With the assistance of counsel, Moore now appeals. 

II 

To merit a COA, Moore must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This will occur when “jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Moore has not made this sort of substantial showing, and is not entitled to a 

COA. As the Colorado Court of Appeals stated in denying Moore post-conviction 

relief in 2015, Moore had the opportunity to present facts and reasons in support of 

his request for new counsel. However, Moore provided only generic and conclusory 

accusations that a conflict existed with his counsel, that he did not get along with his 

counsel, and that his counsel was not taking his case seriously. As the Colorado 
5 

Court of Appeals concluded, discord between counsel and a client “does not create a 

Sixth Amendment violation,” and “a trial court cannot be expected to . . . unilaterally 

decide whether the level of civility is concerning” between an attorney and his client. 

App. at 80 (citing Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)); see also Morris v. 

Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 12–13 (1983). Because Moore has failed to present an issue upon 

which reasonable jurists could disagree, his case does not deserve encouragement, 

and we deny his request for COA. 

Further, “because [Moore] has failed to present a nonfrivolous argument in 

support of the issues on appeal,” Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114, 1121 (10th Cir. 

2010), we also deny Moore’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

III 

We therefore DENY Moore’s motion for a COA and dismiss this matter. We 

also DENY Moore’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge