Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-08071/USCOURTS-ca10-95-08071-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES FRANKLlN BROWN, 

Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES FERGUSON, individually, 

~· t L ~ 0 

United States Co~rt '!r Appealz Tentb Carcmt 

MAY 8 11996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

and in his official capacity as State 

Penitentiary Warden, Wyoming 

Department of Corrections; WYOMING 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

No. 95-8071 

(D.C.Wyoming) 

(D.C. No. 95-CV-175) 

Appellees. 

ORDER ON REHEARING 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

The petitioner James Brown has filed a petition for rehearing with a suggestion for 

rehearing in bane. After due consideration of the arguments set out in the petition, the 

panel has determined that rehearing is not necessary. Accordingly, the petition for 

rehearing is hereby denied. Furthermore, as no judge who is in regular, active service in 

this circuit has called for a poll, the suggestion for rehearing in bane is likewise denied 

Appellate Case: 95-8071 Document: 01019279294 Date Filed: 05/31/1996 Page: 1 
Nevertheless, the panel has determined to \Vithdraw the Order and Judgment 

originally filed on April 29, 1996 and recall the mandate. Upon review, the panel has 

concluded that Brown's claims are procedurally barred and that his theory of actual 

innocence is unavailable under binding Tenth Circuit precedent. A new Order and 

Judgement reflecting the panel's decision is filed \\lith this Order. 

It is hereby ordered that the petition for rehearing is DENIED, the suggestion for 

rehearing in bane is DENIED, and the Order and Judgment filed on April29, 1996, is 

WITHDRAWN. The Order and Judgment accompanying this Order shall be filed by the 

Clerk of the Court. 

2 

Appellate Case: 95-8071 Document: 01019279294 Date Filed: 05/31/1996 Page: 2 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FILED 

lJnlted States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES FRANKLIN BROWN, 

Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES FERGUSON, individually, 

and in his official capacity as State 

Penitentiary Warden, Wyoming 

Department of Corrections; WYOMING 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Appellees. 

No. 95-8071 

MAY 3 1 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

(D. C. Wyoming) 

(D.C. No. 95-CV-175) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that oral 

argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

!his order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law 

of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation 

of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the 

terms and conditions of lOth Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 95-8071 Document: 01019279294 Date Filed: 05/31/1996 Page: 3 
James Brown, a state inmate and prose litigant, appeals the denial of habeas relief. 

We review the district court's order de novo and affirm. 

Brown was convicted in the State of Wyoming of five counts of second degree 

sexual assault and two counts of indecent liberties with a minor. Brown was sentenced to 

life on each of the five counts of sexual assault and a minimum term of nine years and a 

maximum term of ten years for each count of indecent liberties. Three of the life 

sentences were to be served consecutively. 

Brown appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court asserting five errors: ( 1) 

improper admission of Rule 404(b) conduct; (2) variance between the bill of particulars 

and the indictment; (3) instructional error; (4) insufficient evidence; and (5) cumulative 

error. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed one of his convictions for sexual assault 

but affirmed the remaining four counts of sexual assault and the two counts of indecent 

liberties with a minor. 

After Brown unsuccessfully pursued post conviction relief in the Wyoming courts, 

he filed a federal habeas corpus petition. In that petition, Brown asserted the same issues 

that he had asserted on direct appeal and also raised eight additional issues that he had 

failed to raise on direct appeal. Included among those eight issues was a claim that he 

had received an excessive, illegal, and unconstitutional sentence. The district court 

dismissed the petition, concluding as follows: (1) Brown had failed to show any federally 

protected right was violated concerning the issues appealed to the Wyoming Supreme 

Court; and (2) the new claims, including the claim that his sentence was excessive and 

2 

Appellate Case: 95-8071 Document: 01019279294 Date Filed: 05/31/1996 Page: 4 
.. 

illegal, were procedurally barred because Brown had not raised them on direct appeal and 

had not demonstrated "cause and prejudice" or a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." 

This court affirmed on appeal for substantially those reasons identified by the district 

court. Brown v. Shillinger, No. 93-8109, 1994 WL 145993 (lOth Cir. 1994). 

After filing several additional state petitions, Brown filed the instant petition. In 

the current petition, Brown focuses on the claim that his sentence was illegal, excessive, 

and in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. According to Brown, 

the sentencing court erred in sentencing him to straight life terms rather than to a 

maximum and minimum terms as is required by Wyoming law. See Wyo. Code Ann. § 

7-13-201 (1995). Because he was purportedly not sentenced in conformity with 

Wyoming law, Brown claimed that he was "actually innocent" of the life sentences and 

that his claims were not, therefore, procedurally barred. The district court dismissed the 

current petition as legally frivolous, stating that Brown was procedurally barred from 

raising the sentencing/constitutional claims because he had not raised them on direct 

appeal. The district court went on to address Brown's claim that he was not procedurally 

barred because he was actually innocent of the sentence imposed. According to the 

district court, even if it assumed that Brown was sentenced in error, that error was "not 

the type of error that amounts to 'actual innocence' of the sentence, and it is not 

constitutionally actionable." 

We conclude that the district court did not err when it dismissed Brown's petition. 

Brown failed to raise, in his direct appeal, the issue ~at his sentence was not in 

3 

Appellate Case: 95-8071 Document: 01019279294 Date Filed: 05/31/1996 Page: 5 
conformity with Wyoming law and in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection 

Clauses. See Brown v. Shillinger, No. 93-8109, 1994 WL 145993, at *2 (lOth Cir. 1994) 

(holding that Brown had waived, in an earlier habeas petition, the exact issue presented 

here because he failed to raise the issue on direct appeal to the Wyoming Supreme 

Court); Brown v. State, 894 P.2d 597, 598 (Wyo. 1995) (noting that Brown's claim of 

illegal/unconstitutional sentence is procedurally barred under Wyoming law). 1 

Accordingly, Brown is procedurally barred from raising the issue unless he can 

demonstrate either "cause and prejudice" or a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." See 

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991 ). This Brown cannot do. 

Brown attempts to meet his burden under Coleman by asserting that he need not 

show prejudice because he is actually innocent of the life sentences. Under Tenth Circuit 

precedent, however, "[a] person cannot be actually innocent of a noncaptal sentence." 

United States v. Richardson, 5 F.3d 1369, 1371 (lOth Cir. 1993); see also Sones v. 

Hargett, 61 F.2d 410,419 n.l9 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting circuit split on question of 

whether actual innocence standard can be extended to non-capital sentencing procedures 

and noting that no such claim is available in the Tenth Circuit.). Because the sentences at 

issue are not capital in nature, a claim that Brown is actually innocent of the sentences 

1

Brown repeatedly argues that Wyoming courts have misinterpreted Wyoming law 

in holding that the claims he wishes to assert here are procedurally barred In response, 

we simply note that "it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state 

court determinations on state law questions." Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 

(1991 ). 

4 

Appellate Case: 95-8071 Document: 01019279294 Date Filed: 05/31/1996 Page: 6 
does not lie. Because Brown's asserted avenue for overcoming the procedural bar is 

unavailing, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing his petition. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming is 

AFFIRMED. 

ENTEREDFORTHECOURT 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 95-8071 Document: 01019279294 Date Filed: 05/31/1996 Page: 7