Opinion
22-1039
02-24-2022
In re: WILLIAM FRANK SANDOVAL, Movant.
(D.C.No. 1:21-CV-02751-GPG) (D. Colo.)
Before MATHESON, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
William Frank Sandoval, proceeding pro se, moves for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. For the following reasons, we deny authorization.
Mr. Sandoval was convicted in Colorado state court of enticement of a child. He received an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term of four years and a maximum of life imprisonment. After exhausting his state court remedies, he filed a § 2254 habeas petition, which the district court denied. We affirmed that denial. Sandoval v. Raemisch, 743 Fed.Appx. 220, 225 (10th Cir. 2018).
Mr. Sandoval now seeks authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 application to present five new claims for relief. He asserts that: (1) he was fraudulently convicted, because the judge's signature on the complaint/information used to charge him and on other documents in his case was forged; (2) a portion of his trial transcript cited by a Colorado court proves the victim changed her story, thus establishing his actual innocence; (3) he appeared pro se at certain pretrial critical stages of his criminal proceedings, without being advised of the dangers of self-representation and without his having knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel; (4) based on "all the information Mr. Sandoval processed on probable cause and due process . . . the information filed pre-trial . . . is woefully inadequate for claiming both probable cause and the claiming of both Territorial and Subject Matter Jurisdiction," Mot. at 15; and (5) a prior challenge he raised to territorial and subject matter jurisdiction, apparently in a state habeas corpus proceeding, was improperly "disposed of under the guise of trial issues in the name of local control," id. at 16.
Mr. Sandoval contends he has newly discovered evidence to support his claims. To obtain authorization based on newly discovered evidence, he must show:
(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B).
Mr. Sandoval has failed to show that the factual predicate for his claims involves newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence. He must satisfy this requirement even for new claims that assert a lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 592 (10th Cir. 2011) ("[L]ack of jurisdiction is not one of the two authorized grounds upon which a successive § 2254 motion may be filed.").
For his first new claim, he asserts that at an unspecified time he "requested and received a copy of the . . . information/felony complaint" tied to his case, Mot. at 8, along with a copy of an oath of office signed by the same judge. Based on his comparison of the signatures on the oath of office, the information, and the arrest warrant and affidavit, he concluded that the signatures were not the same and that the signatures on documents in his case must have been forged. But he does not explain why he could not have discovered this information previously through the exercise of due diligence.
His second and third new claims are based on events at his trial and do not involve newly discovered evidence. His fourth new claim is based on the contents of the complaint and information filed against him, plus some unspecified information bearing on the issues of probable cause and due process, which he also fails to show is newly discovered evidence. Finally, he also fails to show that he could not have previously discovered the factual predicate for his fifth new claim through the exercise of due diligence.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Mr. Sandoval's motion for authorization. This denial of authorization "shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).