DELANO MEDINA, a/k/a Medina Delano v. JENNIFER HANSEN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
No. 24-1353
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
March 11, 2025
D.C. No. 1:24-CV-01428-LTB-RTG (D. Colo.)
Before PHILLIPS, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
Delano Medina, a Colorado inmate proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA“) allowing him to challenge the district court‘s dismissal of his
Background
I. The State Court Proceedings
In August 2013, Medina was charged in Lake County, Colorado, with felony menacing after his wife reported to law enforcement that he had threatened her with a
Medina filed two applications in state court for post-conviction relief. In August 2015, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It was denied a month later, on September 7, and Medina did not appeal that denial. He filed his second application in February 2018 under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c). In that motion, Medina argued the trial court had erred in accepting his Alford plea without also requiring the prosecution to establish a factual basis for the charged offense. The trial court denied relief, and Medina ultimately appealed that case to the Colorado Supreme Court. In September 2023, that court rejected Medina‘s argument. It held “that a defendant may enter an Alford plea while nonetheless waiving the establishment of a factual basis for the charge under [Colo. R.] Crim. P. 11(b)(6), provided that the plea is voluntary, knowing,
II. This Proceeding
On May 20, 2024, Medina filed the § 2254 application in this case. He asserted one claim for relief, that his ”Alford plea [was] entered without a factual basis in violation of due process.” R. at 7. The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, who, after hearing from the parties, issued a report recommending the action be dismissed as untimely under the applicable one-year limitations period established in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA“). See
Specifically, the district court held that Medina‘s criminal case was finalized for purposes of
The court liberally construed Medina‘s application to include a request for equitable tolling. But it held Medina had failed to show the requisite diligence or explain how any action by the State prevented him from filing his federal habeas petition sooner. The court observed that between the time his conviction became final and the expiration of the AEDPA limitations period, Medina appears to have taken no action in pursuit of his claims. According to the district court, Medina “[did] not address the relevant time period at all—instead, he skip[ped] to the filing of his Rule 35(c) motion in 2018, which was filed well after the [
Finally, the court construed Medina‘s § 2254 application to also include a claim of actual innocence based on his argument relying on the recorded phone calls with his wife. The court acknowledged that “a credible showing of actual innocence provides a gateway to consideration of an otherwise untimely claim of constitutional error as an equitable exception to the one-year limitation period.” R. at 106 (citing McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013)). But it rejected Medina‘s actual innocence argument for two reasons. First, the proffered evidence was not new; the court noted Medina had presented evidence of the phone calls to the criminal court before he was sentenced. Second, the court held that the recorded calls, in which Medina‘s wife “purportedly ‘confessed that
Medina seeks a COA to appeal that decision.
Discussion
I. Standard of Review
“A COA is a jurisdictional pre-requisite to our review.” Clark, 468 F.3d at 713; see
II. The Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling
AEDPA creates a one-year deadline for filing a federal habeas petition.
Medina‘s criminal conviction became final, and the AEDPA limitations period began to run, on May 7, 2015, when the time for filing a direct appeal expired. 110 days elapsed before Medina filed his first state habeas petition on August 25, 2015, leaving 255 days remaining. The limitations period was then tolled from August 25 to October 26, 2015, when Medina‘s deadline to appeal the State‘s denial of that petition expired. The limitations period began to run again on October 26, 2015. It expired 255 days later, on July 7, 2016. Medina did not file this action until 2024.
Reasonable jurists could find no legitimate debate here. Medina did not file his Rule 35(c) motion until February 2018, long after the AEDPA limitations period expired. As such, it was not a “properly filed application” for purposes of tolling under
The district court‘s well-reasoned decision also explained why Medina failed to establish a basis for equitable tolling. The facts and circumstances underlying Medina‘s § 2254 application have long been known to him. Yet, as the court observed, he provided no explanation for his inaction between October 2015, when his state habeas petition was denied, and the expiration of the AEDPA limitations period on July 7, 2016. In rare circumstances, actual innocence can serve as a gateway to allow consideration of an otherwise untimely § 2254 petition. But “[a]n actual innocence claim must be based on more than the petitioner‘s speculations and conjectures.” Taylor v. Powell, 7 F.4th 920, 927 (10th Cir. 2021). To qualify for this exception, Medina had to show “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of new evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In our view, reasonable jurists could
Conclusion
We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We also deny Medina‘s request to proceed in forma pauperis for failure to show “the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge