Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01020/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01020-0/pdf.json

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

---

... 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LARRY WAYNE WHITE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

JUN 151990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

LOU HESSE, Superintendent, 

Correctional Facility; and 

WOODARD, Attorney General, 

of Colorado, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Fremont ) 

DUANE L.) 

State ) 

No. 90-1020 

(D.C. No. 89-N-1921) 

( D. Colo. ) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

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. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner in this case filed two petitions for habeas corpus 

in federal district court within a two-month period. Both petitions were denied by the district court upon the recommendation of 

* 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: 90-1020 Document: 010110036202 Date Filed: 06/15/1990 Page: 1 
the magistrate. Petitioner now appears to appeal the denial of 

both petitions. Petitioner's brief on appeal deals only with the 

law concerning denial of federal habeas corpus because of the 

failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner does not explain 

which order he is appealing. However, since petitioner's brief on 

appeal was filed after both orders were entered, we will treat 

petitioner's appeal as an appeal of the denial of both petitions 

for writs of habeas corpus. 

We affirm the magistrate's recommendations and the trial 

court's orders denying both petitions. In the first petition, 

petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus from his conviction by 

the Denver district court in 1975 for sexual assault. Petitioner 

filed directly with the Colorado Supreme Court for a writ of 

habeas corpus/writ of prohibition which was denied on 

September 21, 1989. We agree with the district court that this 

petition should have been filed with "the court which imposed sentence" pursuant to rule 35(c) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c). Petitioner's filing did not 

fall within the issues which could be raised directly in the 

Colorado Supreme Court on habeas corpus. See Specht v. Tinsley, 

385 P.2d 423 (Colo. 1963); Mulkey v. Sullivan, 753 P.2d 1226, 1232 

(Colo. 1988). Petitioner must file his present claim as a writ of 

error in the Denver district court and pursue all state appeals 

before federal habeas corpus would be proper. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1020 Document: 010110036202 Date Filed: 06/15/1990 Page: 2 
In the second petition for habeas corpus, petitioner sought 

review of a decision to revoke parole for his 1975 conviction 

based on a later conviction for forgery. However, petitioner's 

state appeal of this claim appears to be pending in the Colorado 

court of appeals. We conclude that until petitioner has exhausted 

his rights within the Colorado state court system, the 

administration of justice is not best served by our consideration 

of his habeas corpus action. See Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 

129, 131 (1987). 

The district court's dismissals of both petitions for writs 

of habeas corpus are AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1020 Document: 010110036202 Date Filed: 06/15/1990 Page: 3