`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
`_________________________________
`ALONZO G. DAVISON,
`
` Petitioner - Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`STEVEN HARPE,
`
` Respondent - Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`No. 24-5104
`(D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00456-SEH-CDL)
`(N.D. Okla.)
`_________________________________
`ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
`_________________________________
`Before TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.
`_________________________________
`Alonzo G. Davison, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se,1 seeks a
`certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.
`§ 2241 habeas application. We deny his request for a COA and dismiss this matter.
`
`* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
`res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
`consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
`
`1 Because Mr. Davison appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but we
`will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).
`
`FILED
`United States Court of Appeals
`Tenth Circuit
`
`April 29, 2025
`
`Christopher M. Wolpert
`Clerk of Court
`Appellate Case: 24-5104 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2025 Page: 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Under Oklahoma law, people convicted of certain offenses committed on or after
`March 1, 2000, must serve 85 percent of their sentence to be eligible for parole. See
`Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 12.1.
`In 2002, an Oklahoma jury convicted Mr. Davison of lewd molestation (count
`one) and sexually abusing a minor child (count two). The trial court imposed a 50-year
`sentence on count one, and a consecutive 75-year sentence on count two. The court’s
`judgment did not say when Mr. Davison committed the crimes. The Oklahoma Court of
`Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences to two concurrent
`45-year terms.
`In 2004, after the appeal, the trial court amended the judgment, changing the crime
`of conviction on count one from lewd molestation to sexually abusing a minor child,
`stating that crime occurred on August 8, 2001, and listing the sentence as 45 years. On
`count two, the amended judgment noted the crime occurred on January 1, 2000, and
`changed the sentence to a concurrent 45 years.
`In 2023, Mr. Davison applied for § 2241 habeas relief in federal court. Section
`2241 permits a state prisoner to challenge the execution of his sentence. See
`Leatherwood v. Allbaugh, 861 F.3d 1034, 1041 (10th Cir. 2017). Mr. Davison’s § 2241
`application asserted he had already completed his sentence and disputed how his
`“sentence is being carried out, calculated, or credited by prison or parole authorities.” R.
`at 31. He alleged they had mistakenly applied the 85-percent rule to his count-one
`sentence. In his view, he was eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence.
`Appellate Case: 24-5104 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2025 Page: 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`The district court denied his § 2241 application. The court found that although the
`85-percent rule does not apply to Mr. Davison’s sentence on count two, it does apply to
`his sentence for sexual abuse of a minor child committed on August 8, 2001. See Okla.
`Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1 (2001). It follows, the court said, that Mr. Davison will not be eligible
`for parole until 2040.
`II. DISCUSSION
`A state prisoner must obtain a COA to appeal the denial of § 2241 relief. See 28
`U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000). To
`receive a COA, the prisoner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
`constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and must show “that reasonable jurists
`could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
`that issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack
`v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). We deny Mr. Davison’s
`request for a COA because reasonable jurists could not debate that he has failed to state a
`claim for relief under § 2241.
`Mr. Davison does not dispute that if the amended judgment accurately identified
`when he committed the crime, the 85-percent rule governs. He admits that prison
`officials applied the 85-percent rule to his count-one sentence because the amended
`judgment says he committed the crime on August 8, 2001. His § 2241 application fails to
`show any error in the execution of his sentence.2
`
`2 Mr. Davison argues the district court should have held a hearing. A district court
`has discretion to hold a habeas-case evidentiary hearing, which is unnecessary where, as
`Appellate Case: 24-5104 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2025 Page: 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`In this court, Mr. Davison does not contend prison officials erred in executing his
`sentence. See Appl. for COA at 18. He instead argues the Oklahoma trial court erred by
`including the date of the count-one offense in the amended judgment. But this attack
`does not challenge the execution of the sentence and must be made in a § 2254
`application.3 See Leatherwood, 861 F.3d at 1042; see also Magwood v. Patterson, 561
`U.S. 320, 332 (2010) (recognizing a § 2254 application “seeks invalidation (in whole or
`in part) of the judgment authorizing the prisoner’s confinement” (quotations omitted)).
`Mr. Davison’s § 2241 application identifies only a single ground for relief—
`improper application of the 85-percent rule. Reasonable jurists would not debate the
`district court’s rejection of that claim.
`III. CONCLUSION
`We deny Mr. Davison’s application for a COA and dismiss this matter.
`Entered for the Court
`
`
`Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
`Circuit Judge
`
`here, the court can resolve a habeas application based on the record. See Anderson v.
`Att’y Gen. of Kan., 425 F.3d 853, 858-59 (10th Cir. 2005). Because the amended
`judgment refutes Mr. Davison’s § 2241 claim, no reasonable jurist could debate that the
`district court acted within its discretion in not holding a hearing.
`
`3 Mr. Davison has already challenged his Oklahoma judgment in a § 2254 habeas
`application. See Davison v. McCollum, 696 F. App’x 859, 860 (10th Cir. 2017). He may
`not file a second or successive § 2254 application challenging the judgment without prior
`authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
`Appellate Case: 24-5104 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2025 Page: 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`