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

### Jan u ary3,2007 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

S T E VE N HAR RI NGT ON, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. L A R R Y R E I D ; J O H N SU T H E R S, t he A t t orneyG ener al forthe St at e of C ol or ado, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1016 ( D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado) ( D . C. N o. 04 - CV - 55 1- LTB - CB S)

ORDE R B efo re M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C ir c u it J u d g e s . Pr ocee di ng pro se , S tev e n D . H a rrin g to n se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty ( “C O A ”) fr om thi s courts o he ca n appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e titio n . See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( pr ovi di ng thatno appea l m aybe t aken f r om a fi nal or derdi s pos i ng of a § 2254 pe t i t i on unl es s t he pet i t i onerfi r s tobt ai ns a C O A ) . B eca us e H arr i ngt on has not“made a s ubs t ant i al sh o w in g o f

th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t,” th is c o u rt deni es h is r eq u est fo r a C O A and di s m i s s es th is a p p e a l. Id . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ). A C ol or ado j uryconvi ct ed H arr i ngt on of fi r s tdegr ee mur der , cr i m i nal att empt fi r s tdegr ee mur der , fi r s tdegr ee a s s aul t , s econd de gr ee ki dnappi ng,-2-

aggr avat ed r obbery , fi r s tdegr ee a ggr avat ed mot orvehi cl e theft , and cr i m i nal att empt fi r s tdegr ee s exual as s aul t . H arr i ngt on’ s convi ct i ons w er e affi r m ed on di r ectappea l bythe C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s . H arr i ngt on then fi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o C ol o. R . C r i m . P. 35( c) s eeki ng pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. A ft erthe m ot i on w as deni ed bythe s t at e tr i al court , H arr i ngt on fi l ed a r enew ed R ul e 35( c) p o st-c o n v ictio n m o tio n w h ich w a s a lso d e n ied . T h e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls r ever s ed the deni al of H arr i ngt on’ s R ul e 35( c) m ot i on and r emanded t o the tr i al courtt o m ake f

i ndi ngs of fa ctpur s uantt o C ol o. R . C r i m . P. 35( c) ( 3) . O n r emand, th e trial c o u rt o n c e a g a in d e n ied th e m o tio n . T h e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls aff i r m ed thatdeci s i on on J une 12, 2003, and the C ol or ado Supr eme C our tdeni ed H a rr in g to n ’s p e titio n fo r w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri . H arr i ngt on fi l ed the i ns t ant§ 2254 pet i t i on on M ar ch 11, 2004, r ai s i ng the foll ow i ng t en clai m s: (1) he w as denied his ri gh tt o a fa i r tri al and du e process b e c a u se o f

th e trial c o u rt’s fa ilu re to se v e r h is tria l f ro m th a t o f

h is c o d e fe n d a n t, (2) h e w as d en ied h is r igh t t o a fair tri al an d d u e p roc ess w h en the tri al co u rt perm i t t ed a D enverpol i ce offi cert o t es t i fyas an expe r ti n gang ac t i vi t i es , ( 3) he w as d en ied h is r igh t t o a fair tri al an d d u e p roc ess b ec au se th e tri al co u rt perm i t t ed gang- r el at ed evi dence t o be admi t t ed, ( 4) he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o a fa irtr ial an d d u e p roc ess a s a re su lto f th e p rose cu ti o n ’s ex erc ise o f p ere m p tory chal l enges , ( 5) he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al and due pr oces s beca us e of j urym i scond uct, (6) he w as denied his ri gh tt o a fa i r tri al and du e process-3-

beca us e the tr i al courtperm i t t ed the admi s s i on of ey ew i tnes s i dent i fi cat i ons , ( 7) h e w as d en ied h is r igh t t o a fair tri al an d d u e p roc ess d u e to th e state’s su p p re ss io n o f

m a ter ial e v id e n c e in v io latio n o f th e p rin c ip les a n n o u n c e d in B r ady v. Mar

yland , 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) , ( 8) he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al an d d u e p roc ess w h en the tri al co u rtall o w ed a p h y sici an to testi fyas a n ex p ert out s i de hi s defi ned ar ea of expert i s e, ( 9) he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o effect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel bo th d uri ng tri al and du ri ng po st -convict i on proceed i ng s, an d (10 ) he w as d en ied h is r igh t t o a fair tri al an d d u e p roc ess w h en the tri al co u rt re f u s e d to h o ld a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g d u ri n g h is p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p ro c e e d in g . I n a l engthyand thor ough R ecomm endat i on w hi ch addr es s ed ea ch of H arr i ngt on’ s cl ai m s i n turn, a magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended the deni al of H arring ton ’s § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n . A fter rev iew ing the m ag istrate jud g e’s R ecomm endat i on and cons i der i ng H arr i ngt on’ s obj ect i ons ther et o, the di s tr i ct courtadopt ed the r ecomm ended rul i ng and deni ed H arr i ngt on’ s § 2254 pet i t i on. A l though H arr i ngt on’ s pet i t i on cont ai ned both exhaus t ed and une xhaus t ed cl ai m s, the d i stri ctcou rtadd res sed t he en t i re pet i t i on on the m eri t s. Moor e v. Schoem an , 2 8 8 F .3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, t o the ext entH arr i ngt on’ s cl ai m s i nvol ved onl yal l egat i ons of s t at e l aw err or , the c la im s w e re n o t c o g n iz a b le in a fe d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s p ro c e e d in g . See Estel l e v. McG uir e , 502 U . S. 62, 67- 68 ( 1991) . T o the ext entthos e cl ai m s al s o i m pl i cat ed H a rrin g to n ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, h o w e v e r, th e c o u rt a n a ly z e d th e m o n th e m e rits-4-

a n d c o n c lu d e d H a rrin g to n w a s n o t en tit led to re lief b e c a u se h e fa iled to d e m o n s tr a te h is tr ia l w a s re n d e re d f u n d a m e n ta lly u n fa ir . See D onnel l y v. D eC hristoforo , 416 U . S. 637, 642- 48 (19 7 4 ); D u c ke tt v. Mu lli n , 306 F. 3d 982, 9 9 9 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta l s o r e v i e we d th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms thatw er e pr evi ous l yadj udi cat ed bythe C ol or ado s t at e court s . A ppl y i ng the s t andar d s etfor th i n the A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ct , the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded the s t at e court s ’ adj udi cat i on of thos e cl ai m s w as not contr aryt o, noran unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw . 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). T hi s courtcannotgr antH arr i ngt on a C O A unl es s he ca n demonstr at e “that r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , forthatm at t er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I n eval uat i ng w hether H arr i ngt on has carr i ed hi s bur den, thi s courtundert akes “a pr el i m i nary , though n o t d e fin iti v e , co n sid e ra tio n o f th e [ leg a l] f

ra m e w o rk ” a p p lica b le to e a c h o f h is c la im s . Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . H arr i ngt on i s not r e q u i r e d t o d e mo n s tr a t e th a th i s a p p e a l wi l l s u c c e e d t o b e e n t i t l e d t o a CO A. He m us t , how ever , “pr ove s om ethi ng m or e than the abs ence of fr i vol i tyorthe exi s t ence of m er e good fa i th. ” Id. (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ).-5-

T h is c o u rt h a s re v iew e d H a rrin g to n ’s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d a p p e llate br i ef, the magi s tr at e j udge’ s R ecomm endat i on, the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s O r der , and the en ti re rec o rd o n ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o the f ram ew o rk se t ou t bythe S u p rem e C o u rt in Mi l l e r - El and concl udes H arr i ngt on i s not ent i t l ed t o a C O A . T he di s tr i ct court ’ s r es ol ut i on of H arr i ngt on’ s cl ai m s i s notr eas onabl ys ubj ectt o debat e and th e c l a i m s a r e n o ta d e q u a t e t o d e s e r v e f u r th e rp r o c e e d i n g s . A c c o r d i n g l y, H arr i ngt on has not“made a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t” a n d is n o t e n title d to a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ). T h is c o u rt d en i es H arr i ngt on’ s r eques tfora C O A and di s m i s s es th is app eal . H arr i ng t on ’s m oti on t o p roceed in form a pau peri s i s gr ant e d.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt E L IS A B E T H A . S H U M A K E R , C lerk By D ep u tyC lerk