Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Kansas state prisoner Muhammad Waliallah sought a certificate of appealability for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to consider whether the federal district court erred in dismissing his 28 U.S. Code 2254 habeas claim that an acknowledgment of rights form was used improperly when he pled guilty to 10 counts of robbery.
The federal district court dismissed the claim as unexhausted and as procedurally barred, the opinion noted. Waliallah didn’t contest he failed to exhaust this claim in state court, but he argued the claim wasn’t procedurally barred there when the federal district court dismissed it. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals out of Topeka, Kansas, denied his request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed this matter.
Waliallah pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. He appealed his sentence. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Kansas Supreme Court denied review. He next sought state habeas relief, claiming his guilty plea wasn’t entered knowingly and voluntarily and was entered due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The state district court denied relief, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed and the Kansas Supreme Court denied review.
Waliallah sought federal habeas relief under 2254, claiming (1) his guilty plea wasn’t entered knowingly and voluntarily, (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel, (3) manifest injustice requires withdrawal of his guilty plea, (4) an acknowledgment of rights form was used improperly and (5) the Kansas Court of Appeals improperly deferred to factual findings. The district court denied (1), (2), (3), and (5) on the merits, and dismissed (4) for failure to exhaust state remedies. The district court denied a certificate of appealability. He filed a notice of appeal and sought a certificate of appealability from the 10th Circuit.
According to the opinion, the 10th Circuit must grant a certificate of appealability to review a 2254 application, citing 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) and Miller-El v. Cockrell. To receive a certificate of appealability, an applicant must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” as the 10th Circuit cited 28 U.S.C.2253(c)(2). Because the district court denied Waliallah’s habeas application on procedural grounds “without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim,” a certificate of appealability can’t issue unless he shows both “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling” (Slack v. McDaniel and Dulworth v. Jones). “Each component of [this] showing is part of a threshold inquiry,” the 10th Circuit noted, citing Slack. If a petitioner can’t make a showing on the procedural issue, the 10th Circuit doesn’t need to address the constitutional component, the opinion added.
After evaluation, the 10th Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed this matter.