Robinson v. Crouse , 178 F. App'x 813 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 28, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
KEVIN ROBINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 05-8086
vs. (D.C. No. 04-CV-74-B)
(D. Wyo.)
BRENT CROUSE, Warden, Crowley
County Correctional Facility; R. O.
LAMPERT, Director, Wyoming
Department of Corrections; PATRICK
CRANK, Wyoming Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, MCKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Kevin Robinson, a state inmate, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) allowing him to appeal the district court’s denial of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Robinson
has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and accordingly, we deny his request and
dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Robinson was convicted by a jury in Wyoming state court of voluntary
manslaughter and soliciting a minor to engage in illicit sexual relations, following
the death of a fifteen year-old girl, who was allegedly his girlfriend, and was one-
month pregnant at the time. Mr. Robinson was sentenced to a combined term of
twenty-two to twenty-nine years imprisonment. Mr. Robinson filed a direct
appeal, but his conviction was affirmed. Robinson v. State, 11 P.3d 361 (Wyo.
2000). Mr. Robinson filed a motion for a new trial, but that was also ultimately
denied. Robinson v. State, 64 P.3d 743 (Wyo. 2003).
On appeal, Mr. Robinson raises five arguments: (1) a COA should issue
because there have been “substantial violations” of his constitutional rights and
the district court’s assessment of his claims was debatable or wrong; (2) his
conviction was obtained through hearsay admitted in violation of his
Confrontation Clause rights; (3) his incarceration was a violation of his right to
effective assistance of counsel at trial; (4) his incarceration was a violation of his
right to effective assistance of counsel on his motion for a new trial; and (5) his
conviction is in violation of clearly established Supreme Court precedent because
the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
In order for this court to grant a COA, Mr. Robinson must make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). Where the district court has rejected Mr. Robinson’s constitutional
-2-
claims on the merits, he must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where the district court has
rejected Mr. Robinson’s constitutional claims on procedural grounds, he must
demonstrate that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Id.With regards to those claims presented to Wyoming state courts (either on
direct appeal or on post-conviction appeal) and were denied, the district court
could not properly issue a writ of habeas corpus unless it found that the state
court adjudication resulted in a decision that “was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v.
Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). It is against these standards that we assess
the district court’s denial of Mr. Robinson’s petition.
Having carefully reviewed the district court’s analysis of Mr. Robinson’s
claims on appeal, as well as the entire appendix, we conclude that our standard of
review precludes us from arriving at a conclusion different than the district court.
We are persuaded that the reasoning of the state courts’ conclusions were not
-3-
contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established
federal law. As such, we conclude that none of Mr. Robinson’s claims suffice to
make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we
DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-