FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 11, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT PATRI CK M I CH AEL O ’ NEI LL,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 3401 v. D . K an. L O U I S E . B R U C E , W ar den, H u t c h i n s o n C o rr e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty; A tt orneyG eneral of K ansas,

R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No. 0 6 - CV - 3 0 6 2 - J W L)

ORDE R DE NYI NG AP P LI CAT I ON F OR CE RT I F I CAT E OF AP P EA LA BI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

Patr i ck M . O ’ N ei l l ( O ’ N ei l l ) pl ed no cont es tt o one countof s exual i nt er cour s e w i th a chi l d underthe age of 14 pur s uantt o K an. St at . A nn. § 21- 3 5 0 2 . H e w a s e v e n tu a l l y s e n t e n c e dt o 1 5 5 m o n th s i m p r i s o n m e n t . S u b s e q u e n t l y, h e file d m o tio n s a tte m p tin g to w ith d ra w h is p le a b a s e do n , in tera lia , i neffect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l an d n e w lyd isc o v e re de v id e n c e . O ’N e ille x h a u ste dh is claim s at th e state c o u rtleve l; the tri al co u rt ’s w ell -reaso n ed d ec isi o n s w ere u p h e ld b yth e K a n s a s C o u rto f A p p e a ls o n tw o s e p a ra te o c c a s io n s .P ro s e p le a d in g s a re lib e ra lly c o n s tru e d . Ledbet terv. C i t y of Topeka, 1 Ka n ., 3 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). -2- O ’N e ill , ap p e a rin g p ro se , b ro u g h t th is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n fo r a w rit 1 of habe as corpus on M ar ch 1, 2006. T he di s tr i ctcourtacc ur at el ys um m ar i zed the num er ous cl ai m s m ade byO ’ N ei l l : 1) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ; 2) err or bythe tr i al courti n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s no cont es tpl ea; 3) w i thhol di ng exculpat oryevi dence i n vi ol at i on of B rady v. M aryl and , 373 U . S. 83 (19 6 3 ); an d 4 ) vio lat ion o f h is r igh ts un d er M i randa v. A r iz ona , 384 U . S. 436 (1 9 9 6 ). O ’ N ei l l ’ s habea s pet i t i on w as deni ed i n di s tr i ctcourtas w as hi s appl i cat i on forcert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( C O A ) . H e al s o m oved forappoi ntm entof couns el and t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris ( ifp ). T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d“ n o b a sis to ap p o in t co u n se l in th is m a tter” b u t g ra n ted O ’N e ill ifp sta tu s p u rsu a n t to R u le 9 . 1 (g) o f th e U n it ed S tat es C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of K an sas. (R . D o c. 28 at 2.) O ’N eil l r en ew s h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r C O A in this C o u rt. See 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(A ); F ED . R . A PP . P . 2 2 (b )(1 ). A C O A is a ju risd ictio n a l p re re q u isite to o u r r e v ie w . M ill e r-E l v. C o c k re ll, 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . W e w i l l i s s ue a C O A onl yi f O ’ N ei l l m akes “a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a con st i tuti on al ri gh t . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3(c) (2) . T o m ake thi s show i ng , he m ust es t abl i s h “r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have been r es ol ved [bythe di s tr i ctcourt ] i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues-3-

pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Sl ack v . M c D a n iel, 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n dc ita tio n s o m itte d ). T he di s tr i ctcourtr evi ew ed O ’ N ei l l ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m agai ns tthe tw o- pr ong t es ts etouti n St r i ckl and v. Was hi ngton , 466 U . S. 688 ( 1 9 8 4 ) a n d fo u n d n o e rr o r . Af t e rth o r o u g h a n a l y s i s i ta l s o r ej e c t e dh i s c l a i ms r egar di ng hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea, concludi ng port i ons r el at ed sol el yt o st at e l aw , w hil e the rem ai nd er w ere w i tho ut m eri t . H i s B rady cl ai m w as nots upport ed bythe r ecor d and the M i randa c la im w a s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . W e have r evi ew ed O ’ N ei l l ’ s ar gum ent s and w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ct c o u rt : “ th e e v i d e n c e c l e a r l ye s t ab l i s h e s M r . O’ Ne i l l i s e n t i t l e dt o n o r e l i e f. ” ( R. D oc. 18 at1. ) W e DE NY O ’ N ei l l ’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and D I SM I SS the appea l . O ’ N ei l l ’ s l ett ert o thi s C ourtr eques t i ng couns el i s cons trued as a mot i on for app ointm ent of cou nsel and i s DENI ED a s m o o t. FOR TH E CO UR T: T err ence L . O ’ B r i en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge