Opinion ID: 169022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of a Constitutional Right

Text: 24 Even if the District Court erred in its procedural ruling, however, this Court may not grant a COA unless Mr. Fleming has also shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. In reaching this determination, we will not delve into the merits of the claim, but instead will determine only whether the petitioner has facially alleged the denial of a constitutional right. Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 803 (10th Cir.2000) (alteration and quotation omitted). Furthermore, it is sufficient for purposes of granting a COA that any one of the claims in the habeas petition states such a claim. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 372 (4th Cir.2004); see also Gibson, 232 F.3d at 803 (concluding that at least one of petitioner's claims stated a valid constitutional claim); Jefferson v. Welborn, 222 F.3d 286, 289 (7th Cir.2000) (holding [a]t least some of [the petitioner's] claims facially allege the `denial of a constitutional right'). 25 Mr. Fleming asserts several claims, at least two of which (one on each count) state a valid constitutional claim. First, Mr. Fleming contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment right because his trial counsel failed to perfect a direct state court appeal from the guilty-plea conviction. Mr. Fleming asserts that he asked his counsel to appeal his guilty-plea conviction. In fact, defense counsel notified the state court of his intent to appeal the conviction, but no appeal was ever filed. This Court has held that [w]here . . . appellate counsel negligently fails to perfect an appeal, counsel's failure necessarily constitutes ineffective assistance. Johnson v. Champion, 288 F.3d 1215, 1229-30 (10th Cir.2002) (citing Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 397, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985)); see also Baker v. Kaiser, 929 F.2d 1495, 1499 n. 3 (10th Cir.1991) (noting that if it is the client's wish to appeal, counsel must perfect an appeal). Second, Mr. Fleming alleges the state knowingly used perjured testimony of a primary witness at trial. 6 We have held that the prosecution's knowing solicitation of, or failure to correct, perjured testimony violates a defendant's due process rights and will be grounds for a new trial `if the false testimony could in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury.' See United States v. Vaziri, 164 F.3d 556, 563 (10th Cir.1999). Although we intimate no view on the merits of these claims, we conclude that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim of the denial of a constitutional right. If the District Court finds Mr. Fleming is entitled to equitable tolling, the constitutional issues he seeks to raise on appeal are adequate to deserve further proceedings.