Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01146/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01146-0/pdf.json

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

---

URITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILBERT JOHNSON, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

~.,ILED 

United State:·. ~ ·.tr1: oi Appeals 'T~ .... -•1- ... :""'~••i+: 

FEB 2 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1146 

(D.C. No. 88-C-270) 

(D. Colo.) 

WALTER KAUTZKY and ) 

DUANE L. WOODARD, Attorney ) 

General of the State of ) 

Colorado, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In this case we consider petitioner's appeal of the district 

court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 u.s.c. S 2254. 

As a preliminary matter, we grant the request for a certificate 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: 90-1146 Document: 010110103806 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 1 
probable cause. However, we affirm the district court's denial of 

the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

In September of 1984, Mr. Reuth, an elderly man, was visited 

by a Mr. McVickers, a bare acquaintance of Mr. Reuth's. The 

visit, by Mr. Reuth's account, was strange in that he hardly knew 

Mr. McVickers and that it appeared Mr. McVickers had an ulterior 

motive for the visit. Apparently, Mr. Reuth was correct. One 

month later, on October 19, 1984, Mr. Reuth was awakened by the 

barking of his dog. He came downstairs and was jumped from behind 

by at least two men who proceeded to tie him and take possessions 

from his home. After the assailants left, Mr. Reuth freed himself 

and called the police. The police responded and found, down the 

road from Mr. Reuth's home, an automobile in a ditch with three 

passengers inside. The three passengers were Mr. McVickers, Mr. 

White, and petitioner. Along with the three passengers, the 

police found various items from Mr. Reuth's home. Petitioner 

himself was carrying a pocket knife that belonged to Mr. Reuth and 

was wrapped in blankets from the Reuth home. Mr. McVickers and 

Mr. White pleaded guilty. Petitioner went to trial and lost. The 

jury found him guilty of theft from the elderly, as well as 

conspiracy to commit theft, robbery, and burglary. The jury found 

him not guilty as to the substantive offenses of robbery and 

burglary. 

Petitioner has two claims. First, that there was not enough 

evidence to convict him. Second, that the verdict was 

inconsistent. Both of these claims were carefully treated by the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1146 Document: 010110103806 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 2 
• 

recommendation of Magistrate Harvey and the subsequent order of 

Judge Carrigan. 

On the first claim, we need only review the evidence to see 

that it could, in a reasonable jury's perception, support the 

conviction. In this case, the petitioner was found sitting in a 

automobile with the other two defendants. He was covered with 

blankets from the Reuth home, as well as carrying the knife of the 

victim. Additionally, his story of having slept through the whole 

episode -- which necessarily included the long drive down the 

potholed road to and from the Reuth home, the crimes committed 

within the home, the crash of the automobile into the ditch, and 

the attempts at extricating the automobile -- stretches the limits 

of credulity. Furthermore, although petitioner claims to have 

been hitchhiking when he was picked up by the other two 

individuals, he certainly did not act as if he had just met his 

accomplices. For instance, petitioner admits that when the police 

officer knocked on the automobile window, he accepted, apparently 

without question, Mr. Reuth's knife and some marijuana that Mr. 

White handed to him. Additionally, there is police trial 

testimony that when Mr. White was asked by the police who Mr. 

McVickers was, Mr. White said "He's our buddy Jim," and that 

petitioner nodded in agreement. Furthermore, a prisoner testified 

that, when put in jail, petitioner yelled to Mr. White "Well, 

brother we really fucked up." Although petitioner has claimed 

innocence, a reasonable jury could have found petitioner guilty on 

this ample, albeit circumstantial, evidence. Therefore, we affirm 

the denial of the petition. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1146 Document: 010110103806 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 3 
, 

The second issue need not detain us long. We see no real 

inconsistency in the verdict; rather, what we perceive is a 

thoughtful and restrained jury. In this case, the jury convicted 

petitioner of theft from the elderly, as well as conspiracy to 

commit theft, robbery, and burglary. However, the jury acquitted 

petitioner of robbery and burglary. Apparently, the jury had 

doubts about whether petitioner was in the Reuth home during the 

robbery and burglary or just waiting in the automobile, possibly 

having refused to take part in the actual crime. However, the 

jury members must have been certain that petitioner was involved 

in the planning of the crime and was complicitous -- as was 

evident in his sharing in the booty -- in the post-crime events. 

Again, we see nothing inconsistent with this verdict, and so find 

no error in the district court's denial of the petition as to this 

claim. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court, 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1146 Document: 010110103806 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 4