W e c o n stru e M r. B re n n e r’s m o tio n fo r a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l filed in 1 the di s tr i ctcourtas the func t i onal equi val entof a not i ce of appea l as onl yone s ubs t ant i ve or derhad bee n ent er ed byt he di s tr i ctcourtand thati s t he obvi ous s ubj ectof the appe al . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 3( b) ( 4) ; Sm i th v. B arry , 502 U . S. 244, 

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

### Ju ly25,2006 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 P ATRI CK L. BRE NNER, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. HO YT B RI LL; ATTO RN EY GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1111 ( D . C . N o. 06- Z - 49) (D . C o lo .)

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. Patr i ck L. B r enner , a s t at e i nm at e pr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for a w ri t of

h ab ea s co rpu s filed p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 . T h e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed the habe as act i on as t i m e barr ed undert he one- y earl i m i t at i on per i od u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ); a n d a lso d ism iss e d o n e o f th e c laim s b e c a u se it d id n o t im p lica te a fe d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l rig h t. 12 4 8 -49 (19 9 2 ).

M r . B r enneras s ert s thathe di d fi l e a di r ectappea l , R . D oc. 2 at3, 2 h o w e v e r, w e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t su c h a fili n g a p p e a rs to b e a p o stc o n v ic tio n m o tio n . Id . D o c . 4 a t 1 -2 . B ec au se th e re co rd is insu ffici en t t o d eterm ine p rec isel yw h en M r. 3 B re n n e r filed e a c h o f th e se m o tio n s, w e w ill tak e th e d a tes a s p ro v id e d b yh im in h is h a b e a s a p p lic a tio n a n d re s p o n s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r t o s h o w c a u s e . - 2 - T o obt ai n a C O A , M r . B r ennerm us tm ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); M ill e r-E l v . C o c k re ll, 5 3 7 U . S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 6 (20 0 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted). W h ere a d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s es a habe as pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , “a CO A s houl d i s s ue w hen the pr i s oners how s , atl eas t , t hatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hethert he p e tit io n sta tes a v a lid c laim o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fin d it d e b a tab le w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt w a s c o rre c t in its p roc ed u ral ruli n g . ” S lack v . M cD an iel , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). I n D ece m ber1991, fol l ow i ng a pl ea of gui l tyt o tw o count s of s exual assa u lto n a c h il d b yo n e in a p o sit ion o f trust, a C o lorad o stat e d istri ct co u rt sen tenc ed M r. B ren n er to a n ind eterm inate term o f o n e d ayto li fe in p ri so n . M r. B r enner di d not fi l e a di r ect appea l . M r . B r ennerfi l ed s ever al pos t - convi ct i on 2 m ot i ons i n the s t at e di s tr i ctcourt . H e fi l ed hi s fi r s tone on N ovember30, 1998, 3 w h ich th e d istric t co u rt d e n ied o n M a rc h 4 , 1 9 9 9 , an d th e sta te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls aff i r m ed thatdeni al on February12, 2001. H e fi l ed a s econd mot i on on N ovember5, 1999, w hi ch the s t at e di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed on D ece m ber2, 1999, and- 3 -

the s t at e courtof appe al s aff i r m ed thatdeni al on A pr i l 10, 2000. M r . B r enner fi l ed a thi r d m ot i on on N ovember18, 2002, w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed on J anuary23, 2004, and the s t at e courtof appe al s aff i r m ed thatdeni al on J une 23, 2005. T he s t at e s upr eme cour tdeni ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i on O ct ober 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 . I n hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on, M r . B r ennercont ends that( 1) the s t at e tr i al courtl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on beca us e the pr os ecut orhad nott aken a nd filed a n o a th o f

o ffice , an d (2 ) h e w a s d e n ied c o u n se l in th e trial c o u rt in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is th ird p o st-c o n v ictio n m o tio n . T h o u g h th e d istric t co u rt is unas s ai l abl ycorr ectthatthe l ack of pos t - convi ct i on couns el does noti m pl i cat e a fede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght , s ee Penns y l vani a v. Fi nl ey , 481 U . S. 551, 556- 57 ( 1987) ( no r i ghtt o pos t - convi ct i on couns el ) , w e denya C O A on the bas i s thatt he act i on i s t i m e- barr ed. M r . B r ennerhad unt i l A pr i l 24, 1997, t o fi l e hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on g iv e n h is 1 9 9 1 c o n v ic tio n s a n d th e e n a c tm e n t o f th e o n e -ye a r l im ita tio n p e ri o d . U ni t ed St at es v. H ur s t , 322 F. 3d 1256, 1260 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . H i s pet i t i on w as fi l ed D ece m ber30, 2005, and i s pl ai nl yunt i m el y . St at e pos t - convi ct i on m ot i ons do nott ol l w hen the l i m i t at i on per i od has expi r ed. Fi s herv. G i bs on, 262 F. 3d 1135, 1142- 43 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . A l though the l i m i t at i on per i od m aybe t ol l ed by extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s , t he l ack of couns el i s notone them. M ar s h v. S o a re s , 2 2 3 F .3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ).- 4 -

W e D EN Y M r . Br e nn e r ’ s a pp l i c a t i on fo ra CO A , D EN Y I FP a nd D I SM I SS the appe al . M r . B r ennerm us tpaythe fi l i ng fee . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge