Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06047/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tench Circuit 

WILLIAM DAVID HENSLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

STEPHEN KAISER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG - 8 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-6047 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-2053-P) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant William David Hensley appeals prose from 

the district court's denial of his 28 u.s.c. § 2254 action. In 

1986, Hensley plead guilty and was convicted in Oklahoma state 

court of possession of a controlled substance with intent to 

distribute after formerly being convicted of two felonies. 

Hensley made no attempt to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise 

perfect an appeal. Three years later, he sought post-conviction 

relief in state court alleging that, as a result of ineffective 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6047 Document: 010110040735 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 1 
assistance of counsel, his guilty plea had been involuntarily 

obtained in violation of the sixth and fourteenth amendments of 

the United States Constitution. The state court held that because 

Hensley failed to challenge his conviction on direct appeal, post 

conviction relief was unavailable under Oklahoma law. Hensley v. 

Oklahoma, No. PC-89-1013, unpub. op. at 1-2 (Okla. Crim. App. Nov. 

2, 1989). 

Hensley now seeks federal relief under§ 2254 on the same 

grounds as stated in his state court action. The district court 

held that Hensley's action was procedurally barred because he had 

deliberately bypassed a direct appeal of his original conviction. 

Hensley v. Kaiser, No. CIV-89-2053, unpub. op. at 5 (W.D. Okla. 

Jan. 19, 1990). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the 

record on appeal and conclude that the district court's analysis 

is correct. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Hensley's§ 2254 

action substantially for the reasons set forth by the district 

court. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6047 Document: 010110040735 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 2