221 F.3d 1352 (10th Cir. 2000), 00-7029, July v. Champion
|Citation:||221 F.3d 1352|
|Party Name:||Wiley Gene JULY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron CHAMPION, Respondent-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||July 28, 2000|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA10 Rule 36.3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
2000 CJ C.A.R. 4596
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
After examining Petitioner's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The court therefore orders the case submitted without oral argument.
Wiley Gene July, proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability ("COA") to enable him to appeal the district court's denial of the habeas petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that an appeal may not be taken from the denial of a § 2254 habeas petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). July was convicted of first degree murder in Oklahoma state court and received a sentence of life without parole. July filed a direct appeal with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ("OCCA"). July raised four issues in his direct appeal: (1) the denial of the assistance of an expert at his trial violated his rights to due process and the effective assistance of counsel; (2) statements he gave during custodial interrogations were not made voluntarily because he was intoxicated; (3) the waiver of his Miranda rights was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently; and (4) the state trial court erred when it denied his request to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and on the lesser-included offense of first degree manslaughter.
The OCCA addressed each of July's claims and issued an opinion wherein it affirmed July's conviction and sentence. July filed the instant § 2254 habeas petition with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on July 20, 1998. In his habeas petition, July reasserted the four claims he raised before the OCCA.
The district court assigned the matter to a United States magistrate judge who made findings and recommended July's habeas petition be dismissed. After reviewing July's objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, and dismissed July's petition. The district court also refused to grant July a COA and denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. July's renewed request to proceed...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP