Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02731/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02731-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RILEY BRADFORD WHITE, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

United States Co'!lrt ~f Appeals 'f£'nth Circuit 

FEB 05 1989 

ROBER'£ L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

LARRY MEACHUM; OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT ) 

OF CORRECTIONS; ) 

) 

No. 86-2731 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. 86-1578-R) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Riley Bradford White, appearing prose. 

Rob~rt H. Henry, Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Michael W. 

Elliott, Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, of Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for Respondent. 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 86-2731 Document: 010110017255 Date Filed: 02/05/1988 Page: 1 
Riley Bradford White, a prisoner in the custody of the 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections appearing prose, appeals the 

United States District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma's dismissai of his 42 u.s.c. § 1983 case. He alleges 

that the Department of Corrections' method of computing his good 

time credits violates the ex post facto clause, Art. I sec. 9(3), 

of the United States Constitution. The district court construed 

the complaint as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and 

dismissed it for failing to exhaust state remedies. We affirm for 

the reasons stated below. 1 

White began by pursuing informal methods to correct the 

Department of Corrections' allegedly unconstitutional good time 

credit policy. After writing several letters which failed to 

resolve the problem, he filed an action in the district court for 

the County of Pittsburg, Oklahoma asserting that the Department of 

Corrections' policy for calculating his good time credit violates 

the Constitution's ex post facto clause as interpreted in Weaver 

v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981). Although the state filed an 

elaborate brief on the merits, the state court dismissed the claim 

1 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. 34.1.8 and 27.1.2. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 86-2731 Document: 010110017255 Date Filed: 02/05/1988 Page: 2 
without opinion. White failed to timely appeal pursuant to Okla. 

Stat. tit. 22, § 1087 (1981). 

White next attempted to obtain relief by filing an action in 

federal court asserting the identical claim denied by the state 

habeas court. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust 

state remedies at least in part because the petition failed to 

indicate that the state habeas court had issued a final ruling. 

On appeal, the state argues that although the petitioner's state 

case was in fact dismissed, dismissal of the federal claim is 

nonetheless appropriate on exhaustion grounds because of 

petitioner's failure to appeal. 

In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner 

is ordinarily required to show either that a state appellate court 

has had an opportunity to rule on the same claim presented in 

federal court, Smith v. Atkins, 678 F.2d 883, 884-85 (10th Cir. 

1982) (per curiam), or that at the time he filed his federal 

petition he had no available state avenue of redress, see Anderson 

v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 8 (1982) (per curiam). The rationale for 

this requirement is that state courts will enforce the federal 

constitution as fully and fairly as a federal court. See 

Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3-4 (1981) (per curiam). Absent 

some reason to believe otherwise, we must assume that if given the 

chance, Oklahoma's courts will provide White with the same careful 

consideration he would receive before us. Id. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 86-2731 Document: 010110017255 Date Filed: 02/05/1988 Page: 3 
White's time for appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals has run. Under Oklahoma law, however, that court may 

nevertheless have jurisdiction to address the merits of White's 

federal constitutional claim. In cases involving failure to file 

direct appeals, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1086 (1981) has been 

interpreted by the Oklahoma courts to permit the Court of Criminal 

Appeals to hear time barred appeals if the petitioner follows 

certain procedures. Webb v. State, 661 P.2d 904, 905 (Okla. Crim. 

App.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 959 (1983); Smith v. State, 611 P.2d 

276, 277 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). One whose appeal is time barred 

must file "a post conviction application in the [state] District 

Court, where Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law should be 

made as to whether [he] was denied a direct appeal through no 

fault of his own ... followed by an application, or 

'appeal', ...• filed in [the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals], with the District Court findings and conclusions." 

Smith, 611 P.2d at 277. 

Although the cited Oklahoma cases deal with failures to file 

direct appeals, we think Oklahoma may apply the same rule to the 

instant situation. White's claim could not have been raised at 

his trial; therefore, his appeal from denial of post-conviction 

relief is procedurally identical to a direct appeal. The 

appellate court has not had the opportunity to address the merits 

of his claim. Until White pursues this avenue, the possibility 

exists that the state appellate court, which has never been 

-4-

Appellate Case: 86-2731 Document: 010110017255 Date Filed: 02/05/1988 Page: 4 
presented the issue he raises, will grant the relief he seeks. 

White must give the state appellate court this opportunity. See 

Smith, 678 F.2d at 884-85. If our interpretation of Oklahoma law 

is incorrect and/or White is not granted the relief he seeks in 

state court, he may·renew his petition for habeas corpus in the 

federal district court. 

We affirm the district court's dismissal of White's federal 

habeas petition. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 86-2731 Document: 010110017255 Date Filed: 02/05/1988 Page: 5