Farrell v. Addison , 35 F. App'x 726 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                  F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    JAN 28 2002
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    JIMMY LYN FARRELL,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.                                                             No. 01-7116
    MIKE ADDISON, Warden,                                   (D.C. No. 00-CV-424-S)
    (E.D. Okla.)
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before HENRY, BRISCOE and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
    appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
    submitted without oral argument.
    Petitioner Jimmy Lyn Farrell, an Oklahoma state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a
    certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's dismissal of his 28
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
    U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Because Farrell has failed to make a “substantial showing
    of the denial of a constitutional right” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny his
    request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.
    Farrell was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
    alcohol (Count I) and driving under suspension (Count II). He was sentenced to ten years'
    imprisonment and assessed a $5,000 fine on Count I, and was sentenced to one year
    imprisonment and assessed a $500 fine on Count II. In his direct appeal, Farrell asserted
    (1) his sentences were excessive, (2) the trial court improperly admitted testimony from
    one of the arresting officers regarding his refusal to take a sobriety test, and (3) the
    prosecutor asked improper questions of witnesses and made improper and prejudicial
    comments during closing arguments, all of which caused the jury to decide the case based
    on emotions. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his
    convictions and sentences.
    In his federal habeas petition, Farrell asserted the same issues raised in his direct
    appeal, as well as several other issues not presented to the OCCA. The magistrate judge
    concluded the OCCA had reasonably rejected the three issues raised by Farrell in his
    direct appeal, and that the remaining issues were procedurally barred for failure to raise
    them on direct appeal. The district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and
    dismissed Farrell's habeas petition.
    As regards Farrell's application for a COA, we are unable to conclude the district
    2
    court's assessment of the three issues raised by Farrell on direct appeal was “debatable or
    wrong.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000). We are in substantial
    agreement with the careful analysis of those claims in the magistrate's written
    recommendation filed April 27, 2001, which was adopted by the district court on August
    7, 2001. As for the remaining claims asserted by Farrell in his appellate brief (the trial
    court's refusal to call witnesses in his defense, and the prosecutor's presence in the jury
    room during deliberations), we conclude no appeal is warranted since “a plain procedural
    bar is present and the district court [wa]s correct to invoke it to dispose of the case.” 
    Id. As noted
    by the magistrate, the OCCA would consider these claims procedurally barred if
    Farrell attempted to raise them now in an application for post-conviction relief. Thus,
    those claims are considered procedurally defaulted for purposes of federal habeas review.
    See Thomas v. Gibson, 
    218 F.3d 1213
    , 1221 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[I]f a petitioner failed to
    exhaust state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be required to present
    his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims
    procedurally barred[,] the claims are considered exhausted and procedurally defaulted for
    purposes of federal habeas relief.”) (internal quotations omitted). Finally, Farrell has
    failed to establish cause and prejudice sufficient to excuse his failure to exhaust the
    issues, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if the issues were not
    addressed. See Edwards v. Carpenter, 
    529 U.S. 446
    , 451 (2000).
    Farrell's request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and the appeal is
    3
    DISMISSED. The request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied as moot since
    the district court has granted the request. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
    Entered for the Court
    Mary Beck Briscoe
    Circuit Judge
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-7116

Citation Numbers: 35 F. App'x 726

Judges: Briscoe, Henry, Murphy

Filed Date: 1/28/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023