UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEJUAN JERROD HUNTER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

ERIC FRANKLIN, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 09-5122, 09-5141

(D.C. No. 4:06-cv-00230-CVE-TLW)

(N. D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

 Petitioner-Appellant DeJuan Jerrod Hunter seeks a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), that will permit him to appeal the district court’s 

decision denying him federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his Oklahoma 

conviction for shooting with the intent to kill.1

 In his § 2254 petition, Hunter raised four 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res 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. 

1

 The district court granted Hunter’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Hunter’s appeal No. 09-5122 is taken from the district court’s decision 

denying him habeas relief, while his appeal No. 09-5141 is from the district court’s later 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 16, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 09-5122 Document: 01018367382 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Page: 1 
2 

grounds for relief: 1) the trial court denied him a fair trial by permitting testimony about 

Hunter’s other crimes that were not probative of his guilt on the offense charged; 2) the 

trial court erred in refusing to instruct jurors, during the sentencing phase of trial, that 

Hunter would be required to serve 85% of his sentence before becoming eligible for 

parole; 3) Hunter’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the trial court 

instruct the jury regarding Hunter’s parole eligibility; and 4) his attorney was ineffective 

for failing to argue, on direct appeal, that a) Hunter was innocent; b) the State failed to 

prove all the elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt; c) cumulative 

errors by trial counsel required a new trial; d) prosecutorial misconduct required reversal 

of his conviction; and e) there was no ballistics or fingerprint evidence presented at trial 

linking Hunter to the weapon police found after the shooting. Before this court now, 

however, Hunter seeks a COA on only the first three grounds for relief.2

 

To be entitled to a COA, Hunter must make “a substantial showing of the denial of 

a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He can do so by “showing that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should 

 

decision denying Hunter a COA to appeal the denial of habeas relief. 

2

 After the district court denied Hunter § 2254 relief, he asserted several new claims in 

his application for COA made to the district court, arguing that his trial attorney was 

ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the gun into evidence, investigate the 

gun to determine if it could be linked forensically to Hunter, make the State prove all the 

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and object during the trial to the 

State’s presentation of the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Ray, following the trial court’s 

denial of a defense motion in limine seeking to exclude their testimony. Hunter reiterates 

those claims now in his COA application filed with this court. We decline to grant COA 

on those grounds, however, because Hunter did not properly present them to the district 

court in his § 2254 petition. 

Appellate Case: 09-5122 Document: 01018367382 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Page: 2 
3 

have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to 

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000) (quotation omitted). For substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s 

decision denying Hunter habeas relief, we conclude that he has failed to make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, we DENY Hunter’s 

applications for a COA and DISMISS these appeals. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 09-5122 Document: 01018367382 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Page: 3