Huckfeldt v. State of Wyoming , 691 F. App'x 904 ( 2017 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 19, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
KENNETH J. HUCKFELDT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 16-8131
(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00131-NDF)
STATE OF WYOMING, (D. Wyo.)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND
DISMISSING THE APPEAL
Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Mr. Kenneth Huckfeldt was convicted in state court on charges of
first-degree sexual assault and first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. After
unsuccessfully appealing in state court, Mr. Huckfeldt sought a writ of
habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied relief, and
Mr. Huckfeldt wants to appeal, and to obtain an evidentiary hearing.
To appeal, Mr. Huckfeldt needs a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). For the certificate, Mr. Huckfeldt must
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). This showing exists only if reasonable jurists
could characterize the district court's rulings as debatable or wrong. Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Mr. Huckfeldt argues that the federal district court should not have
rejected his claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, conflict of
interest, abuse of discretion, judicial bias, and prosecutorial misconduct.
The state appellate court rejected these claims on the merits. Thus, Mr.
Huckfeldt had to show that the state appellate court’s decision was
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (2012).
The federal district court denied habeas relief, thoroughly explaining
the absence of a conflict with, or unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law. We agree with that explanation and do not believe
that any reasonable jurist could regard the habeas claims as reasonably
debatable. As a result, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
We also decline the request for an evidentiary hearing because the
record shows the clear unavailability of habeas relief on any of the claims.
See Anderson v. Att’y Gen. of Kan., 425 F.3d 853, 859 (10th Cir. 2005)
2
(“[A]n evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the claim can be resolved on
the record.”).
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3