Tillman v. State of Utah
21-4040
| 10th Cir. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Tillman was convicted of first-degree murder in Utah and originally sentenced to death; the death sentence was later vacated on post-conviction review and he was resentenced to an indeterminate term of 5 years to life.
- In 2009 the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole ordered Tillman to serve a natural-life sentence.
- Tillman filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in 2019, asserting the Board’s natural-life designation violated Utah Code § 76-3-401(8), which he says requires treating a life term as a 30-year term.
- Utah responded that the claim was unexhausted, raised only a state-law issue (not a federal constitutional claim), and failed on the merits.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition as presenting only state-law claims and explained a state-law claim cannot be converted into a federal due-process claim merely by labeling it as such.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, concluding Tillman failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation and that his other arguments were properly pursued, if at all, under § 2254 and now time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s natural-life designation violated Utah law and is reviewable in federal habeas under § 2241 | Tillman: Board must treat life sentence as a 30-year term under Utah statute | Utah: Claim is state-law only and not cognizable in federal habeas; unexhausted and meritless | Court: Claim is a state-law issue not cognizable on § 2241; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Tillman’s characterizing the claim as a due-process violation makes it federal | Tillman: Labels the claim as due process to invoke federal review | Utah: Labeling does not transform a state-law issue into a federal constitutional claim | Court: A state-law error cannot be converted into a federal constitutional claim merely by invoking due process; dismissal proper |
| Whether the arguments actually challenge conviction/sentence and therefore require § 2254 relief | Tillman: Seeks relief via § 2241 | Utah: These are challenges to conviction/sentence and belong in § 2254; if so, they are time-barred | Court: Issues amount to § 2254 claims and are time-barred; § 2241 is not the proper vehicle |
| Whether Tillman made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right for a COA | Tillman: Requests COA to appeal dismissal | Utah: No substantial showing; district court correct | Court: Denies COA; reasonable jurists would not debate the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas not to reexamine state-law determinations)
- Leatherwood v. Allbaugh, 861 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir.) (cannot convert state-law error into federal due-process claim by label)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard: reasonable jurists could debate outcome)
- McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir.) (challenges to conviction/sentence must be brought under § 2254)
- Straley v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 582 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir.) (description of Utah’s indeterminate sentencing scheme)
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir.) (§ 2253(c)(1)(A) applies when a state habeas petitioner proceeds under § 2241)