Opinion ID: 170677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Whether the trial court's refusal to recuse entitles Mr. House to habeas relief?

Text: As his final ground for habeas relief, Mr. House argues that the trial court's refusal to recuse at resentencing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. We conclude that Mr. House waived this argument by failing to brief the issue before the New Mexico Court of Appeals. A federal habeas court may not consider issues raised in a habeas petition that have been defaulted in state court on an independent and adequate procedural ground unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Thomas v. Gibson, 218 F.3d 1213, 1221 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting English v. Cody, 146 F.3d 1257, 1259 (10th Cir.1998)). Mr. House raised the recusal issue on direct appeal in the New Mexico Court of Appeals. It held that Mr. House had waived any appellate challenge regarding his motion to recuse the trial court because, under Rule 12-213 of the New Mexico Rules of Appellate Procedure, he insufficiently briefed the issue. House II, 25 P.3d at 266-67. Specifically the court noted: [Mr. House] captions his argument [regarding recusal] as a constitutional challenge to the procedure afforded under New Mexico law. However, he makes no substantive argument regarding the alleged insufficiency of our procedure, relying instead primarily upon recitation of general language pertaining to the need for impartial tribunals. He also appears to challenge the ruling below as an abuse of discretion. Nonetheless, he has not presented to this Court a discussion of the facts relevant to our review. He also fails to note that his motion has already been reviewed not only by the district court, but also by our Supreme Court  neither of which discerned any basis for recusal. Id. New Mexico courts have consistently applied the rule that deems all issues abandoned that are not raised in an appellant's brief-in-chief. Maes v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 979, 986 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that Rule 12-213 is independent and adequate procedural ground). Consequently, the New Mexico Court of Appeals denied Mr. House's claim on independent and adequate procedural grounds. Mr. House does not question the independence or adequacy of the procedural rule. Nor does he attempt to demonstrate cause and prejudice or the prevention of a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we do not review the merits of Mr. House's claim because of his procedural default in the state appellate court.