Lopez v. Rudek

Summary

The Tenth Circuit denied Raul Lopez’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The court rejected his ineffective-assistance, evidentiary-harpoon, prosecutorial-misconduct, cumulative-error, stay-and-abeyance, and evidentiary-hearing arguments. It held that Lopez had not shown that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution of his claims.

Holdings

1. Lopez was not entitled to a certificate of appealability because he failed to show that reasonable jurists could debate the resolution of his habeas claims or that the issues deserved encouragement to proceed further.
2. Lopez's allegations concerning counsel's performance did not establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
3. The court declined to review Lopez's evidentiary-harpoon, prosecutorial-misconduct, and cumulative-error claims because they were presented in only cursory fashion and did not identify specific errors by the district court or the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
4. Lopez was not entitled to a stay because he failed to establish good cause for not presenting his Fourth Amendment claim first to the state courts.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez an evidentiary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lopez was entitled to a certificate of appealability to challenge the denial of his § 2254 habeas petition.
2. Whether Lopez established ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland and AEDPA.
3. Whether Lopez adequately presented his evidentiary-harpoon, prosecutorial-misconduct, and cumulative-error claims for appellate review.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to stay the habeas proceedings to permit exhaustion of a Fourth Amendment claim.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

dismissed