Pasillas-Sanchez v. Lind
663 F. App'x 632
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cesar Pasillas-Sanchez, a Colorado prisoner, was convicted of second-degree murder, multiple drug and theft counts, and sentenced to 96 years; state appellate review affirmed and certiorari was denied.
- He filed a Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motion which was denied without an evidentiary hearing; state appeals courts affirmed and certiorari was denied.
- Pasillas-Sanchez filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising ten claims; the district court dismissed four as procedurally defaulted and adjudicated six on the merits, denying relief and an evidentiary hearing.
- The district court also denied a certificate of appealability (COA) and in forma pauperis (IFP) status; Pasillas-Sanchez appealed and sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit deemed his notice of appeal timely under the prison-mailbox rule based on his sworn declaration of deposit in legal mail, but denied a COA, holding reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under prison-mailbox rule | Notice was deposited in prison legal mail on June 8, 2016 | Filing was received after deadline; misdirected filing rules apply | Notice deemed timely based on sworn declaration of deposit in legal mail |
| COA requirement | Entitled to COA because constitutional errors (counsel disqualification; IAC) merit debate | No substantial showing that reasonable jurists would debate denial | COA denied — petitioner failed to show reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s assessment |
| Disqualification of chosen counsel (Sixth Amendment) | Trial court wrongly disqualified counsel as potential witness, denying his counsel choice | State/court acted appropriately; decision adjudicated on merits by state appellate court | Claim rejected; petitioner did not meet § 2254(d) standard to show error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple subclaims) | Trial counsel was ineffective in several respects, warranting relief or an evidentiary hearing | State courts reasonably rejected IAC claims; federal court must give deference under Strickland and § 2254(d) | IAC claims denied on the merits; doubly deferential standard applied and no entitlement to habeas relief |
| Request for evidentiary hearing | Needed to develop facts supporting IAC claims | State-court record and § 2254(d) limitations preclude an evidentiary hearing | Denied — habeas relief precluded by state-court record and § 2254(d) limits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ceballos-Martinez, 371 F.3d 713 (10th Cir.) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir.) (prison-mailbox rule requirements and proof of deposit)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S.) (AEDPA’s high deference to state-court decisions)
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (U.S.) (requirement of deference to state-court rulings under § 2254(d))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.) (standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S.) (standard for granting a COA when district court denies relief on the merits)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (U.S.) (limits on evidentiary hearings when § 2254(d) bars relief)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S.) (state-court record can preclude federal evidentiary hearing)
- Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir.) (state-law errors in postconviction procedures not cognizable on federal habeas)
- DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir.) (IFP movant must show inability to pay filing fees)