*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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

December 16, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

VECENTIE SONTIAGO MORALES,

JR., 

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN JONES, Director,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-6166

(Case No. 08-CV-01283-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER*

Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

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

appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition relating to a

sentence revocation hearing. In 1999, Petitioner pled guilty to obtaining

merchandise or money by means of a false and bogus check following a former

felony conviction, and he was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment with

all but the first eighteen months suspended. In 2005, a hearing was held on the

prosecution’s application to revoke the suspended sentence. The state district

Case: 09-6166 Document: 01018331743 Date Filed: 12/16/2009 Page: 1
1

 Petitioner argued that the trial court did not have authority under

Oklahoma law to suspend any portion of the sentence because Petitioner had more

than one prior felony conviction at the time. See Davis v. State, 845 P.2d 194,

197 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993); Bumpus v. State, 925 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Okla. Crim.

App. 1996). The ten-year sentence itself was within the statutory range of

punishment for this offense. 

-2-

court found that Petitioner had violated the terms of his probation, and the court

therefore revoked the suspended sentence and sentenced Petitioner to serve a term

of imprisonment of eight years and six months. The revocation and sentence were

affirmed on direct appeal, and Petitioner’s request for post-conviction relief was

denied by the state district court and again on appeal. Petitioner then filed the

instant federal habeas petition, in which he challenged the legality of the original

suspended sentence,1

 the state court’s decision to revoke the entire suspended

portion of the sentence, several procedural aspects of the revocation proceeding, a

restitution order given in the revocation proceeding, and the effectiveness of his

appellate counsel.

The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who determined that Petitioner

was not entitled to federal habeas relief on any of his claims. The magistrate

judge concluded that most of the claims were procedurally defaulted because

Petitioner did not raise these arguments in his direct appeal and did not claim in

his petition for state post-conviction relief that his appellate counsel was

ineffective for failing to raise these claims. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478,

488 (1986). As for the claim that the original suspended sentence was invalid, the

Case: 09-6166 Document: 01018331743 Date Filed: 12/16/2009 Page: 2
-3-

magistrate judge determined that this claim was time-barred because it should

have been raised within one year after the original conviction became final. The

magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner had properly exhausted his claim that

counsel was ineffective for failing to assert the invalidity of the original

suspended sentence. However, on the merits, the magistrate judge concluded that

Petitioner had not satisfied the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 689 (1984), in light of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’

holding that state law would not permit appellate counsel to use the revocation

appeal to challenge Petitioner’s original sentence. Finally, as for Petitioner’s

argument that the state district court erred in revoking the entire suspended

sentence and sentencing him to serve eight and one-half years of imprisonment,

the magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner had not demonstrated that this

sentence was grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime.

The district court agreed with the magistrate judge’s conclusions and

therefore denied Petitioner’s habeas petition. Petitioner now seeks a certificate of

appealability as to all of the claims raised in that petition. Rather than addressing

the procedural grounds on which his claims were dismissed, he focuses on the

merits of the asserted claims. However, after thoroughly reviewing the record on

appeal, Petitioner’s filings in this court, the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, and the district court’s ruling, we conclude that reasonable

jurists would not debate the correctness of the dismissal of most of his claims on

Case: 09-6166 Document: 01018331743 Date Filed: 12/16/2009 Page: 3
-4-

procedural grounds. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). As for

those claims that were considered on the merits, we conclude that reasonable

jurists would not find the magistrate judge’s assessment of these claims debatable

or wrong. See id. Therefore, for substantially the reasons set forth by the

magistrate judge and district court, 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.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

Case: 09-6166 Document: 01018331743 Date Filed: 12/16/2009 Page: 4