UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

NICK ADAM TRUJILLO, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

v. 

GERMAN FRANCO; THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW 

MEXICO, 

 Respondents – Appellees. 

No. 14-2213 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00618-JCH-GBW) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Petitioner Nick Trujillo, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate 

of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. A 

New Mexico jury convicted Petitioner in 2009 of committing second-degree criminal 

sexual contact with a minor. Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence 

through both a direct appeal and a state habeas petition. In those proceedings, he 

raised numerous grounds for relief, all but one of which were either voluntarily 

dismissed by him or rejected by the state courts. His one successful claim—that the 

court’s assessment of his crime as criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 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

June 19, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-2213 Document: 01019447308 Date Filed: 06/19/2015 Page: 1 
2 

degree was incorrect—resulted in a remand, adjustment of Petitioner’s conviction to 

third-degree criminal sexual contact, and a reduced sentence. 

Following the state courts’ rejection of his other claims for relief, Petitioner 

filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of 

New Mexico in which he raised three properly exhausted grounds for relief: (1) 

violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the trial court 

refused to compel the appearance and testimony of a detective who investigated his 

criminal case; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to cause the detective 

and another potential witness to appear and testify; and (3) insufficient evidence to 

support Petitioner’s conviction. 

A federal court may grant a habeas petition of a person in state custody if the 

state court adjudication of the petitioner’s claims on the merits resulted in a decision 

that was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly 

established Federal law,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts 

in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(d). 

A magistrate judge reviewed each of Petitioner’s claims and concluded that 

Petitioner failed to show a breach of clearly established Federal law or meet the 

“daunting standard” required for a federal court to grant relief under § 2254(d)(2). 

See Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159, 1172 (10th Cir. 2011). The magistrate judge 

therefore recommended dismissal of the petition. The district judge agreed with the 

magistrate judge’s conclusions and ordered the petition to be dismissed with 

Appellate Case: 14-2213 Document: 01019447308 Date Filed: 06/19/2015 Page: 2 
3 

prejudice. Petitioner then sought to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the 

ruling of the district court. 

To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a “substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(2). In order to 

meet this burden, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate 

whether . . . the petition should 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, 475 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s disposition, 

and the record on appeal. Nothing in these materials convinces us that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether the district court’s rulings were correct. Accordingly, 

for substantially the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge and the district court, 

we DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the 

appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-2213 Document: 01019447308 Date Filed: 06/19/2015 Page: 3