Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-06218/USCOURTS-ca10-95-06218-0/pdf.json

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

---

Patrick Fisher 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Office of the Clerk 

Byron White United States Courthouse 

1823 Stout Street 

Denver, co 80257 

July 7, 1995 

Elisabeth Shumaker 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

RE: 95-6218, Stafford v. Ward 

Filed June 29, 1995 by Judge Ebel 

Please be advised that the court, on its own motion, 

has ordered the captioned decision to be published. Attached 

is the published version. 

Attachment 

Very truly yours, 

Patrick Fisher, 

Clerk A 

syvft;frvo~L .£~ Barbara Schermerhorn 

Deputy Clerk 

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 1 
PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROGER DALE STAFFORD, SR., 

Appellant-Petitioner, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

APPEALS 

JUN 2 !J 1995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 95-6218 

RON WARD, Warden, Oklahoma 

State Penitentiary at 

McAlester, Oklahoma; DREW 

EDMONDSON, Attorney General 

of Oklahoma, 

Appellees-Respondents. 

Appeal from the United States ·District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. CIV 85-1950-W) 

Stephen Jones, OBA and James L. Hankins, OBA of Jones, Wyatt & 

Roberts, Enid, Oklahoma, for Petitioner-Appellant. 

Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, and Sandra Howard, Chief, 

Criminal Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for AppelleesRespondents. 

Before MOORE, LOGAN, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

We have before us an appeal from a district court order 

denying Appellant's following two motions: (1) a motion pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from the final judgment 

dismissing Appellant's prior habeas petition, or for an 

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 2 
evidentiary hearing; and (2) a motion for an order directing the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its order setting 

Appellant's execution date. We also have before us Appellant's 

motion for stay of execution pending appeal and non-expedited 

briefing schedule.l Having carefully considered these matters, we 

deny the motion for stay of execution and non-expedited appeal and 

affirm the district court ruling denying relief on the two 

substantive motions. 

We first address Appellant's Rule 60(b) motion for relief 

from the final judgment dismissing Appellant's prior habeas 

petition, or for an evidentiary hearing. Appellant's argument is 

that newly discovered evidence suggests, most significantly, that 

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not have the state 

court trial record before it at the time it purported to reweigh 

the aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to Clemons v. 

Mississippi, 494 u.s. 738 (1990) .2 

We begin by observing that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals explicitly stated that it had carefully reviewed the 

1 This panel has closely monitored these matters since they 

were initially filed in the United States District Court, and 

considerable effort has been expended on the issues raised. This 

panel has had the benefit of all the briefs filed with the 

district court as well as briefs filed with us. Accordingly, the 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be 

useful and that further delay in this appeal is not warranted. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. Appellant's 

request for oral argument is therefore denied and the case is 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

2 Stafford's case had been remanded to the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals to provide a more thorough analysis of a prior 

reweighing. See Stafford v. Saffle, CIV-85-1950-W (W.D. Okla. 

March 10, 1993) (as cited in Stafford v. State, 853 P.2d 223, 224 

(Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1993)). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 3 
evidence and that it did, in fact, conduct a conscientious and 

independent reweighing. Stafford v. State, 853 P.2d 223, 226 

(Okla. Crim. App. 1993) ("After careful, independent review and 

consideration of the evidence as set forth above which supports 

the valid aggravating circumstances, as well as the evidence which 

may be considered mitigating, this Court finds the sentence of 

death factually substantiated and appropriate."); see id. at 225 

n.1 ("We once again reaffirm our original finding that these valid 

aggravators were amply supported by the trial record."). We have 

examined the evidence as submitted by Appellant in support of this 

motion, and we find nothing to undermine this statement. 

The docket sheet from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

reveals that the trial court transcript was sent back from the 

federal court system to the state court system in "April 1993," 

and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' reweighing was not 

decided until April 29, 1993. 853 P.2d 223. Therefore, the 

docket sheet is totally consistent with the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals' statement that it reviewed the evidence and 

conducted its own independent reweighing.3 The other evidence 

submitted by Appellant included the affidavit of attorney James L. 

Hankins. We have reviewed that affidavit and note that it does 

3 Appellant argues that although the docket sheets indicate 

that the trial record was returned to the state court system in 

April of 1993, they do not indicate that the trial record was sent 

to the individual judges on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals. However, the evidence submitted is insufficient to show 

that such an event would have been reflected as a docket sheet 

entry. Even if such evidence had been submitted, we would have no 

reason to assume that the judges did not review the trial record, 

notwithstanding their express representation to the contrary, 

rather than assuming that there was simply an error in the docket 

sheets. 

-3-

II 

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 4 
not demonstrate that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in 

fact failed to perform the review and reweighing that it 

represented it had done. 

The federal district court denied relief on this motion, 

declining to conduct an "inquiry into the inner-workings of the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the role of the court staff 

and the internal policies and procedures of the state court 

clerk's office." Stafford v. Ward, No. CIV-85-1950-W (June 9, 

1995) . Here, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals explicitly 

and unequivocally stated that it did reweigh the evidence 

according to the standards of Clemons, and Appellant has submitted 

no evidence impeaching that statement. Thus, we affirm the 

district court's denial of relief and denial of an evidentiary 

hearing under Appellant's Rule 60(b) motion.4 

We turn now to Appellant's motion for an order directing the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its order setting 

Appellant's execution date for July 1, 1995. Appellant argues 

that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' order setting this 

execution date is void because it was issued at a time when the 

federal district court had an extant order staying further state 

proceedings in his case. 

On May 5, 1993, the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma denied habeas relief, but 

4 Stafford also claims that law clerks and a judge who later 

retired initially drafted the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' 

opinion, and that the authoring judge's participation in that 

opinion was minimal. That claim is predicated on mere speculation 

and hearsay. Further, it asks us to probe the work habits of the 

individual judges on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, and 

we decline to do so on the basis of the record before us. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 5 
nevertheless entered an order on June 18, 1993, "that all 

proceedings in the state court action, State v. Stafford, No. CRF79-83 are STAYED until resolution of the petitioner's appeal to 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and 

further Order of this [district] Court." On September 12, 1994, 

we affirmed the denial of habeas relief. On October 24, 1994, we 

ruled on Appellant's motion for a stay of the mandate pending 

application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, 

concluding that: 

Upon consideration whereof, it is ordered that 

issuance of the mandate is stayed until January 11, 

1995, and that if, on or before that date, there is 

filed with the Clerk of this Court a notice from the 

Clerk of the Supreme Court that appellant has filed a 

timely petition for writ of certiorari in that court, 

the stay shall continue until final disposition in the 

Supreme Court. 

Stafford v. Saffle, No. 93-6214, order of Oct. 24, 1994. On 

December 20, 1994, we further stayed the issuance of the mandate 

through March 10, 1995, again reiterating that if Appellant filed 

a timely petition for writ of certiorari, "the stay shall continue 

until final disposition in the Supreme Court." Stafford v. 

Saffle, No. 93-6214, order of Dec. 20, 1994. On May 1, 1995, the 

Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for a writ of 

certiorari. That same day, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

set an execution date for July 1, 1995, in response to an 

application by the Attorney General. 

In arguing that the order setting the execution date should 

be vacated, Appellant cites to 28 u.s.c. § 2251, which reads as 

follows: 

-5-

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 6 
A justice or judge of the United States before whom 

a habeas corpus proceeding is pending, may, before final 

judgment or after final judgment of discharge, or 

pending appeal, stay any proceeding against the person 

detained in any State court or by or under the authority 

of any State for any matter involved in the habeas 

corpus proceeding. 

After the granting of such a stay, any such 

proceeding in any State court or by or under the 

authority of any State shall be void. If no stay is 

granted, any such proceeding shall be as valid as if no 

habeas corpus proceedings or appeal were pending. 

It is Appellant's argument that the federal district court stay of 

June 18, 1993 had never been lifted and therefore, under § 2251, 

the setting of an execution date by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals is "void." We note that when this argument was presented 

to the federal district court that entered the initial stay in 

question, that court was unimpressed. It concluded that the stay 

was lifted at the time that the Supreme Court denied certiorari 

and the order denying Appellant federal habeas relief became 

final. Stafford v. Ward, No. CIV-85-1950-W, at 10-11 (June 9, 

1995) (citing In re Jugiro, 140 U.S. 291 (1891)). We agree. 

Once a final decision has occurred concluding that no federal 

habeas relief is warranted, there remains no valid basis to 

support a continuing stay. When this court concluded that there 

was no basis for habeas relief, the necessary consequence of that 

decision was to determine that a further stay was unwarranted. 

However, recognizing the possibility of a petition for a writ of 

certiorari, we entered our own stay of our mandate pending review 

and disposition by the United States Supreme Court. Our stay was 

explicitly ordered to continue only "until final disposition of 

the Supreme Court." When the United States Supreme Court denied 

-6-

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 7 
Appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari on May 1, 1995, that 

effectively removed our stay. Thus, as of May 1, 1995, there was 

no effective stay against the state court from taking further 

action. Therefore, we do not believe that the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals' order of May 1, 1995 setting Appellant's 

execution date for July 1, 1995 ran afoul of the prescription of 

28 u.s.c. § 2251. 

In this analysis, we are guided by the Supreme Court's 

analysis in In re Jugiro, 140 U.S. 291 (1891). In that case, a 

similar argument was made that a state court order setting an 

execution date after the United States Supreme Court had affirmed 

the dismissal of the petitioner's habeas petition, but before the 

Supreme Court's mandate had been issued, was void under a 

predecessor statute to 28 U.S.C. § 2251. That statute provided 

that 11 [p]ending the proceedings or appeal [in a federal habeas 

corpus action] . . . and until final judgment therein, and after 

final judgment of discharge, any proceeding against the person so 

imprisoned or confined or restrained of his liberty, in any state 

court, or by or under the authority of any State, for any matter 

so heard and determined, or in process of being heard and 

determined, under such writ of habeas corpus, shall be deemed null 

and void. 11 U.S. Rev. Stat. §§ 763-766. In rejecting the 

petitioner's claim, the Supreme Court explained as follows: 

Of the object of the statute there can be no doubt. 

It was--in cases where the applicant was held in custody 

under the authority of a state court or by the authority 

of a State--to stay the hands of such court or State, 

while the question as to whether his detention was in 

violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States was being examined by the courts of the 

Union having jurisdiction in the premises. But the 

-7-

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 8 
jurisdiction of the state court in the cases specified 

is restrained only pending the proceedings in the courts 

of the United States, and until final judgment therein. 

This court, on the 24th of November, 1890 ... affirmed 

. . . the judgment of the Circuit Court denying the 

former application for a writ of habeas corpus. That 

was its final judgment in the premises, because it 

determined the whole controversy involved in the appeal. 

Upon its rendition, the appeal from the judgment of the 

Circuit Court was no longer pending in the court; and 

nothing remained that was "in process of being heard and 

determined." It was none the less a final disposition 

of the case because, at a subsequent date, under the 

rules and practice of this court, a mandate would be 

sent down to the Circuit Court, showing the fact of the 

affirmance of its judgment. It is true that it would 

have been more appropriate and orderly if the state 

court had deferred final action until our mandate was 

issued and filed in the Circuit Court. But, in view of 

the words of the statue, we do not feel authorized to 

hold that the order in the state court of December 1, 

1890, made after the final judgment here of November 24, 

1890, was absolutely void. 

Id. at 295-96; see also In re Boardman, 169 U.S. 39 (1898). We 

believe these same principles apply here. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court's denial of Appellant's motion for an order 

directing the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its 

order setting Appellant's execution date. 

In accordance with the foregoing, we DENY the Appellant's 

motion for stay of execution pending appeal and non-expedited 

briefing schedule and we AFFIRM the district court's order denying 

Appellant's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from 

final judgment or for an evidentiary hearing, and denying 

Appellant's motion for an order directing the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals to vacate its order setting Appellant's execution 

date. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 95-6218 Document: 01019279881 Date Filed: 06/29/1995 Page: 9