Opinion ID: 170369
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidentiary Hearing and Appointment of Counsel

Text: The district court denied Mr. Coronado's habeas petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing, notwithstanding Mr. Coronado's motion for a hearing with the assistance of appointed counsel. Mr. Coronado asserts in his application for COA that the court erred in denying his petition without an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Coronado's motion for a hearing and therefore affirm its ruling. See Anderson v. Att'y Gen. of Kansas, 425 F.3d 853, 858 (10th Cir.2005) (A district court's decision to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing in a habeas proceeding is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.). [The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)] strictly limits a federal court's ability . . . to grant evidentiary hearings. Hammon v. Ward, 466 F.3d 919, 925 (10th Cir.2006). Section 2254 provides: If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that  (A) the claim relies on  (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A) & (B); see also Bryan v. Mullin, 335 F.3d 1207, 1214 (10th Cir.2003) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mr. Coronado did not meet this burden. [2] Mr. Coronado has not presented this court with evidence that factual predicates for any of his claims could not have been discovered through due diligence. Moreover, Mr. Coronado has not demonstrated that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. Finally, the district court did not err in failing to appoint counsel for Mr. Coronado. There is no constitutional right to counsel beyond the direct appeal of a criminal conviction, and Mr. Coronado, who was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, has not demonstrated that he was entitled to counsel. See Swazo v. Wyoming Dep't of Corr., 23 F.3d 332, 333-34 (10th Cir.1994) (recognizing the right to counsel in a habeas proceeding when the district court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required).