Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05200/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05200-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILLD ~ United States ~C?f Appeal~ Tenth C1TCU1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WAYNE TAYLOR, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

RON CHAMPION, et al., 

Respondents-Appellees. 

APR 2 Z 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5200 

(D.C. No. 91-C-765-E) 

(Northern District of 

Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH, BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for 

decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (f); 10th Cir. R. 

34.1.2. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

In 1987, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to 

a variety of sexual offenses, as well as to bribing a witness. In 

part because he had a prior felony conviction from the state of 

Florida (in which he pleaded nolo contendere), the court sentenced 

him to 40 years in prison. He did not appeal . Three years later, 

* 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: 92-5200 Document: 010110212845 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 1 
he filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the Oklahoma state 

district court, alleging that the enhancement of his sentence was 

improper because his Florida conviction was constitutionally 

infirm. 

The Oklahoma court denied his motion, stating that those 

matters should have been raised on direct appeal of his sentence. 

The Oklahoma court of appeals affirmed. Having exhausted his 

state remedies, Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus from the 

federal district court. The district court held that the refusal 

of the Oklahoma courts to consider his argument based on his 

failure to appeal his original sentence constituted an adequate 

and independent state ground for decision. Petitioner brought 

this appeal. 

Plaintiff argues that the Oklahoma courts failed to give a 

plain statement that the dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief was based on a procedural default. This statement i s patently false. The Oklahoma district court stated: 

[T]he failure to file a timely direct appeal waives all 

i ssues which could have been raised on appeal unless a 

sufficient reason is given for the failure to do so. 

The Court finds that no appeal has been sought or perfected, n o r has any sufficient reason been offered by 

the Petitioner for his failure to do so . Therefore, the 

Court finds that the Petitioner has waived these issues 

and his Application is denied. 

(R. Doc. 5, Ex.Cat 3) (citations omitted). Similarly, the Court 

of Criminal Appeals stated: "The issue [Petitioner] now raises 

could and should be raised in a direct appeal and [Petitioner] is 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5200 Document: 010110212845 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 2 
therefore precluded from raising such issues in a post-conviction 

proceeding." (Id. Ex.Eat 2.) 

Petitioner next argues that he could not have brought a 

direct appeal in this case, because Oklahoma law required him to 

collaterally attack his prior conviction, rather than bringing a 

direct appeal . Petitioner misunderstands Oklahoma's law. As the 

state courts hearing his motion for post-conviction relief made 

clear, the issues he raises could and should have been raised on a 

direct appeal from his sentence. While they would have constituted a collateral attack on his Florida conviction, they would 

have arisen on direct appeal from this Oklahoma conviction. To 

the extent that Petitioner may be arguing that the Oklahoma courts 

arbitrarily failed to follow their own rules, we see nothing in 

the cases he cites that would support such a contention. 

Petitioner argues that under Collins v. Hesse, 957 F . 2d 746 

(10th Cir. 1992 ) and Gamble v . Parsons, 898 F.2d 117 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 212 (1990), the fact that the prior conviction is used to enhance his present sentence automatically 

entitles him to federal habeas review of the prior sentence. However, the district court was entirely correct in holding that 

while Collins and Gamble stand for the proposition that Petitioner 

is "in custody" under the prior conviction for purposes of habeas 

review, these cases do nothing to alter the rule that states procedural def aults may preclude federal habeas review. Collins and 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5200 Document: 010110212845 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 3 
Gamble do not excuse Petitioner's unexplained failure to take a 

direct appeal from his sentence . 

In the course of addressing Petitioner's arguments, the state 

courts ruled that he could potentially find relief in the Oklahoma 

courts, but only if he first secured post-judgment relief from his 

Florida conviction in the courts of that state. Petitioner argues 

that this requirement is unconstitutional because his efforts at 

post-conviction relief in the state of Florida are now timebarred. This argument is unavailing. By failing to challenge his 

Florida conviction in a timely manner in the courts of that state, 

he has waived his right to do so under the laws of the states of 

Florida and Oklahoma. We see no constitutional requirement that 

Petitioner be given unlimited time to pursue his challenge to his 

Florida conviction. 

Petitioner argues that the district court erred in allowing 

the state procedural default to bar federal review of his claims. 

He argues that federal law must control federal issues. Petitioner misunderstands the nature of federal habeas review. It is 

well established that absent either a miscarriage of justice or 

other unusual circumstances not alleged to be present here, state 

procedural defaults waive both state and federal review of the 

underl ying constitutional claim. ~ Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S. 

Ct. 2546, 2565 (1991 ) . The miscarriage of justice doctrine is 

reserved for the most extraordinary cases. We find no error in 

the district court's determination that the failure to review 

- 4-

Appellate Case: 92-5200 Document: 010110212845 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 4 
Petitioner's federal claims would not result in a miscarriage of 

justice. 

Finally, Petitioner argues that by not briefing each and 

every allegation that he made, the State of Oklahoma has conceded 

all points they did not address. We see no basis for a rule that 

would require this court to reverse correct rulings of the 

District Court just because the state has not briefed each and 

every point. 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-5200 Document: 010110212845 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-5200 Document: 010110212845 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 6