Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01176/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01176-0/pdf.json

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

---

. .. -.:: 

UNITED STA'rES COURT OF. A;PE~,ljJ'J..~.tlppoall , . . . ·• . . . . . _ ., .,:_-_. Tenth Circuit • LtV FOR THE . TENTH CIRCUIT 

SAMMY ABEYTA, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

FRANK 0. GUNTER ((sic) Frank R. Gunter);) 

GALE NORTON, Attorney General of the ) 

State of Colorado, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1176 

(D.C. No. 91-F-1991) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-1176 Document: 010110151432 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 1 
, 

I 

4 

Petitioner Sammy Abeyta appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his prose habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment 

for second degree burglary, aggravated robbery, mandatory sentence 

for a violent crime, and three counts as a habitual offender. 

Petitioner exhausted his state remedies and filed his habeas 

corpus petition in the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado. In his request for federal habeas relief, 

petitioner claims that (1) his absence from the first part of a 

pre-trial hearing violated his constitutional rights to due 

process and confrontation; (2) he received an inadequate 

advisement regarding the elements of the crime prior to entering a 

guilty plea to a 1977 offense used to enhance his sentence under 

the Habitual Offenders Act; (3) he was not advised that his 1977 

plea agreement was not binding on the court in violation of his 

right to due process; (4) he was not advised of his constitutional 

rights which were waived by entry of his 1977 guilty plea; (5) he 

received an inadequate advisement regarding his right to testify 

at his trial; and (6) he received ineffective assistance of 

counsel throughout the proceedings. These are the same issues 

petitioner has repeatedly raised in his state court challenges. 

The district court referred this matter to a magistrate judge 

who issued a recommendation that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Following 

consideration of petitioner's objections, the district court 

adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed 

the action. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1176 Document: 010110151432 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 2 
We have reviewed the record and we can ascertain no reason to 

repeat or further elaborate on the facts or the law as presented 

in the magistrate judge's recommendation of March 9, 1992, and the 

district court's order of April 29, 1992, both of which are 

attached hereto. 

The judgment of the United States District Court of the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED for substantially the same 

reasons set forth in the attached recommendation and order. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1176 Document: 010110151432 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 3