Harmon v. Hines

Tenth Circuit

Harmon v. Hines

127 F. App'x 469

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 2005

Docket04-6286

StatusPublished

This text of 127 F. App'x 469 (Harmon v. Hines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harmon v. Hines, 127 F. App'x 469 (10th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Petitioner-Appellant Donnie Ray Harmon, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) allowing him to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because we determine that Mr. Harmon has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

The parties are familiar with the facts, and we need not restate them here. On appeal, Mr. Harmon reasserts the claims he presented below, specifically that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of assault and battery on a police officer (after former conviction of two or more felonies), (2) his arrest was unlawful, and (3) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After careful consideration of the materials submitted by Mr. Harmon against a backdrop of the state court record, it is apparent that the conclusions of district court, upon adoption of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, are not reasonably debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); R. Doc. 24, 26.

Mr. Harmon’s application for a COA is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Petitioner-Appellant Donnie Ray Harmon, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) allowing him to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because we determine that Mr. Harmon has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

The parties are familiar with the facts, and we need not restate them here. On appeal, Mr. Harmon reasserts the claims he presented below, specifically that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of assault and battery on a police officer (after former conviction of two or more felonies), (2) his arrest was unlawful, and (3) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After careful consideration of the materials submitted by Mr. Harmon against a backdrop of the state court record, it is apparent that the conclusions of district court, upon adoption of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, are not reasonably debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); R. Doc. 24, 26.

Mr. Harmon’s application for a COA is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 F. App'x 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-v-hines-ca10-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack