Houston v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (1999)
Houston v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (1999)
Houston v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (1999)
JUL 27 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
G. SAM HOUSTON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RANDY L. HENDERSON; GALE A.
NORTON, Attorney General of the
State of Colorado,
No. 99-1066
(D.C. No. 97-WM-835)
(D. Colo.)
Respondents-Appellees.
After examining the briefs and 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 cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
Mr. G. Sam Houston appeals pro se the denial of his petition for habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 and requests a certificate of appealability.
For the reasons set out below, we deny him a certificate of appealability and
dismiss this appeal.
In 1991, Mr. Houston was charged with attempted sexual assault on a child
while he was in a position of trust. He was sentenced in state court to six years of
probation. The following year, he was charged with sexual assault, this time on
adults. He entered a guilty plea to two misdemeanors with respect to the new
charges and also admitted to violating his probation. The state court sentenced
him to eight years based on the probation violation. Mr. Houston then filed for
post-conviction relief under Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(a). His motion was denied. He
appealed and was appointed counsel on appeal. The Colorado Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari.
On May 2, 1997, while still incarcerated, Mr. Houston filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus which the district court denied on recommendation from the
magistrate. Although Mr. Houston has since completed his sentence, his release
does not terminate federal jurisdiction with respect to the pending application that
was filed while he was still incarcerated. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234,
237-38 (1968).
-2-
-3-