Opinion ID: 812350
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ground Three

Text: Mr. Kinkead’s third ground for relief is that his imprisonment is a double jeopardy violation. The district court denied this claim as procedurally barred, finding neither “cause and prejudice” nor a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” to excuse the default. Id. at –8. As an initial matter, it is not clear whether Mr. Kinkead seeks a COA on this ground. Mr. Kinkead only refers to this point in the -7- opening paragraph of his brief when he states that he appeals the “judgment denying on ‘procedural grounds’ any federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254.” Aplt. Br. 1. However, construing this pro se pleading liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we will assume that he seeks a COA on this basis as well. Nonetheless, we find that a COA is not warranted because Mr. Kinkead has failed to demonstrate that it is reasonably debatable whether the court’s procedural ruling is correct. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. The district court found that Mr. Kinkead’s double jeopardy claim was procedurally barred because he failed to raise this claim on direct appeal. The court rejected Mr. Kinkead’s argument that he had in fact raised this claim, finding that Mr. Kinkead asserted a different double jeopardy argument on direct appeal. Kinkead, 2012 WL 2995667, at  n.6. On direct appeal, Mr. Kinkead argued that the acceleration of his sentence subjected him to double jeopardy because it was based on violations for which his probation officer had already punished him. However, in his habeas petition, Mr. Kinkead argued that the double jeopardy violation was his current imprisonment after serving two years of a deferred sentence. Id. We do not believe that reasonable jurists could debate the court’s conclusion that these are different claims, and that Mr. Kinkead’s current double jeopardy claim is procedurally barred. Nor do we find that “cause and prejudice” exists for the default or that a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” will result if Mr. Kinkead’s claim is not -8- considered. We note that Mr. Kinkead does not address this point on appeal, and like the district court, we find that Mr. Kinkead has failed to show any reason to excuse the default.