*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and

judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 5 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EDDIE THOMAS, SR.,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STEVE HARGETT, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-6248

(D.C. No. CIV-97-1498-T)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

On July 23, 1996, Mr. Thomas entered a plea of guilty in state court to two

counts of first degree rape and was sentenced to concurrent 35-year terms of

imprisonment. The defendant failed to file a notice of appeal within the ten days

allotted by Oklahoma law and consequently, the judgment of his conviction
1

 Rule 4.2(A) requires:

In all cases, to appeal from any conviction on a plea of guilty or nolo

contendere, the defendant must have filed in the trial court clerk’s

office an application to withdraw the plea within ten (10) days from

the date of the pronouncement of the Judgment and Sentence, setting

forth in detail the grounds for the withdrawal of the plea and

requesting an evidentiary hearing in the trial court. 

2

 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) states:

In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

(continued...)

- 2 -

became final. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, Ch. 18, App., Rule 4.2(A).1 In his postconviction application, Thomas through court-appointed counsel challenged his

conviction on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel

during the critical ten days following his guilty plea and sentencing. After holding

an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the state trial court concluded that Thomas

“failed to show that he was denied an appeal through no fault of his own or that

other circumstances beyond his control should relieve him of accountability for

his potential appeal.” The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Thomas filed in the district court a federal

habeas challenge to his conviction on the same ineffective assistance of counsel

ground. The district court found no evidence in the record rebutting the

presumption of correctness attached to the state court’s factual determinations of 

Thomas’ denial of appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1),2 and concluded that 
2

(...continued)

court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall

be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of

rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing

evidence.

3

 “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies

in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

4

 Thomas’ request to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees is

granted. However, this court need not decide whether Thomas’ appeal was taken

in good faith in light of our determination that a certificate of appealability should

be denied.

- 3 -

Thomas’ claim is procedurally barred. In a subsequent order, the district court

denied Thomas’ pro se request for a certificate of appealability and, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),3 denied Thomas’ motion to proceed on appeal without

paying this court’s filing fee because the appeal was not taken in good faith.

Thomas now asks this court to grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

to grant a certificate of appealability.

Upon careful review of the record, we find that the district court properly

denied Thomas’ application for a certificate of appealability.4 Thomas asserts that

newly discovered evidence -- six affidavits signed after his state evidentiary

hearing -- rebuts any presumption of correctness attached to the state court’s

findings. However the contents of the affidavits (most of which were reviewed by

the district court) shed no light on the issue before the state court: whether

Thomas was denied an appeal through no fault of his own. As a result, Thomas
- 4 -

offers no “clear and convincing evidence” rebutting the presumption of

correctness afforded to the state court factual findings regarding his denial of

appeal. We also agree that the affidavits contain no colorable showing of factual

innocence. 

Therefore, we DENY Thomas’ petition for a certificate of appealability,

and DISMISS his appeal.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge