Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01421/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01421-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR2 3 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEF.. 

Clerl: 

CHARLES R. SMALL, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRANK GUNTER and GALE A. ) 

NORTON, Attorney General of the) 

State of Colorado, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-1421 

(D.C. No. 91-B-1736) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellat~ record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this panel. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(e); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 91-1421 Document: 010110243039 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 1
Charles Small, a state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that he was 

denied his constitutional right to confrontation when the state 

failed to produce a witness who participated in the case as an 

undercover informant. The district court dismissed the petition 

for failure to exhaust state remedies after a magistrate judge 

examined Mr. Small's state appellate briefs and discovered the 

constitutional issue had not been raised. 

Although the state public defender argued the state failed to 

follow proper procedure to insure the presence of the so-called 

informant, counsel did not contend the absence of the witness 

denied Mr. Small his right of confrontation. Thus, the district 

court held he had not exhausted state remedy to raise that issue. 

We agree and AFFIRM on the basis of the reasoning set forth in the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1421 Document: 010110243039 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 2