Mathis v. Scott ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 19 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DARRELL D. MATHIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
No. 97-6230
(D.C. No. 97-CV-420)
H. N. SCOTT; ATTORNEY
(Western District of Oklahoma)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, MCKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Darrell Mathis pled guilty on February 19, 1993 to felony murder.
Following his conviction, petitioner did not move to withdraw his plea or file a
direct appeal. In May 1994, he filed his first application for post-conviction
relief in Oklahoma state court. The application was denied, as was his appeal. In
April 1996, petitioner filed a second application for post-conviction relief in the
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except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.
state court, raising for the first time the claims presented in this § 2254 petition.
His second application was also denied.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma
determined that Mathis had failed to meet the requirements of Oklahoma’s Post-
Conviction Procedure Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 (1986). Section 1086 states,
All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this act must be
raised in his original, supplemental or amended application. Any
ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily
and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the
conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has
taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent
application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which
for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in
the prior application.
The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that petitioner failed to assert
“sufficient reason” for failing to raise his claims on direct appeal or in his first
application for post-conviction relief, and therefore they were procedurally barred
under Oklahoma state law.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Mathis filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. The Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge concluded
that petitioner’s claims were procedurally defaulted in state court, petitioner had
failed to demonstrate cause for the defaults, and all of petitioner’s claims were
without merit. The district court adopted the magistrate’s findings and denied
petitioner a certificate of appealability.
-2-
The Supreme Court has clearly held that procedural default at the state
level will bar federal habeas review:
We now make it explicit: In all cases in which a state prisoner has
defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent
and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the
claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the
default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of
federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will
result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate either cause for the default or actual prejudice. In addition, a review
of his claims indicates that they are without merit.
We DENY petitioner a certificate of appealability and the petition for writ
of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-