Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05111/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05111-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

I '\ r~bl ,(\r 

~ ·r .. 

SEP 2 S 1992 

RODNEY TERRENCE FISHER, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JACK COWLEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL) 

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 92-5111 

(D. C. No. 91-C-0986-B) 

(N . D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA 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. 

submitted without oral argument . 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Fisher, an Oklahoma state inmate, appeals from the denial 

of his habeas petition. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within t he 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: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 1
.. 

Mr. Fisher was convicted of robbery by force after two or 

more felonies and was sentenced to thirty-two years imprisonment. 

Mr. Fisher filed a prose habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (1988) challenging this conviction. Mr. Fisher raised 

three purported constitutional errors: (1) his pretrial 

identification was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive lineup; 

(2) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give the 

petitioner's requested cautionary instruction regarding the 

identification by the victim; and (3) the merits of these two 

claims were not resolved in an adequate fact-finding procedure by 

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. 

The district court analyzed these claims in a thorough sevenpage order dated May 19, 1992 and denied relief. 

Mr. Fisher appeals prose, raising essentially the same first 

two arguments as were raised before the district court. 

The district court correctly analyzed the first claim by 

applying the five factors enumerated in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 

U.S. 98, 114 (1977) to the state court record and concluding that 

the lineup was not constitutionally tainted. The district court 

utilized correct law and correctly applied the facts as found by 

the Oklahoma courts in reaching this conclusion. 

error. 

-2-

We discern no 

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 2
Habeas corpus relief is not available to set aside a jury 

instruction unless the instruction "by itself so infected the 

entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." 

United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 169 (1982). Mr. Fisher has 

failed to show that the failure to give a cautionary eyewitness 

identification instruction to the jury rendered the trial 

fundamentally unfair. The victim in this case made a continuing 

and positive identification following a good opportunity to 

observe the defendant. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in its order of May 19, 

1992, a copy being attached. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 3
I 

J 

ENTERED ON DOCKET 

J;!AT MAY 19 1992 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 1 l tit 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA /;f 4y ~- l) 

'tCha,cr l .,-; 79. 

RODNEY TERRENCE FISHER, · ) No.fhti o'il,.,t..ai,,.,10 '!i? 0~ 

) ~ P!Sflli~'cr-''co . 

Petitioner, ) / '' Qf CouZ'•'" ) Dt4fiu,tj 

v. ) 91-C-986-B 

) 

JACK COWLEY, J.H.C.C., ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

ORDER 

This order pertains to petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket #1) 1 and respondent's Response (#3). Petitioner was convicted 

in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-86-4138, of robbery by force after former 

conviction of two or more felonies, and sentenced to thirty-two (32) years imprisonment. 

The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. 

Petitioner did not file an application for relief under the Oklahoma Post-Conviction 

Procedure Act, 22 O.S. § 1080 et seq. 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief on the alleged grounds that: 1) the 

identification at his trial was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive lineup and should have 

been suppressed, 2) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give the petitioner's 

requested cautionary instruction regarding the identification by the victim, and 3) the 

merits of these two claims were not resolved in an adequate factfinding procedure by the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. 

1 "Docket numbers" refer to numerical designations assigned sequentially to each pleading, motion, order, or other filing 

and are included for purposes of record keeping only. "Docket numbers" have no independent legal significance and are to be used in 

conjunction with the docket sheet prepared and maintained by the United States Court Cleric, Northern District of Oklahoma. 

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 4
In his first ground, petitioner alleges that the trial court's failure to suppress the 

victim's in-court and lineup identifications of petitioner was a constitutional violation, in 

that the participants in the lineup were dissimilar to the petitioner in all having facial hair 

so the petitioner stood out. 

In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), the Supreme Court stated that a claimed 

violation of due process of law in the conduct of a lineup depends on the totality of the 

circumstances surrounding it. In Thompson v. State, 438 P.2d 287, 289 (Okla.Cr.App. 

1968), the court set out the standards for pretrial lineups, saying that the "[o]ther people 

participating in the lineup should be of the same general weight, height, age, color and 

race, whenever possible, and the suspect should not be clothed in such a manner as to 

attract special attention or make him stand out from the other persons in the lineup." 

In this case both the trial court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

concluded that the pretrial lineup was not so suggestive as to taint the in-court 

identification by the victim of the robbery.2 This court is to show deference to these 

2 During a recess granted at trial for defense counsel to present his motion to suppress the in-court identification of the 

victim, based on the claim that the lineup was overly suggestive, the following dialogue occurred: 

MR. 1ROY: Your Honor, we have a motion on file to suppress in-court identification as far as Miss Gladys O'Connor 

is concerned. We would assert to the Court that the lineup that was held in this matter was overly suggestive. This lady described her 

assailant in exceedingly general terms and described him as having no facial hair. I believe photos of the lineup will show there were 

several people in that lineup that did have facial hair. We think that any identification in court would be meaningless at this point and 

would not comport with proper case law, Manson v. Braithwaite, and so forth. 

I ask the Court to look at the photographs and make a determination as to whether the lineup was fair and comports with 

proper procedure. 

TIIECOURT: 

is your specific --

In what regard, Counselor? There's many different reasons you can object to the photographs. What 

MR. 1ROY: My specific objection, Judge, is that too much attention in those photographs was drawn to Rodney Fisher. 

I do not think it was adequate from the standpoint of having somebody of the same general physique, shape of face and as far as facial 

hair goes, height. There was a great differentiation in height also. 

I ask the Court to look at those and rule as to whether or not the lineup was acceptable. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 5
findings that the pretrial identification procedures were proper. Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 

539, 547 (1981). 

The court has examined the photographs of petitioner in the lineup and is led to the 

same conclusion that the trial was not tainted. All five men in the lineup were dressed 

similarly, were of similar complexion, were of similar build, and had similar hair coloring. 

Even if the lineup had been suggestive, the identification of the petitioner by the 

state's witness, the woman who was robbed, was independently reliable. It has been held 

that even where the pretrial identification procedures are unduly suggestive, the in-court 

identification is still proper if the identification is shown to be independently reliable. 

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 

384 (1968). 

TIIE COURT: 

MS. PRIORE: 

TIIE COURT: 

Very well. Does State's counsel have the photographs? 

Yes, Judge, I do. 

Very well. I will have a look. 

Well, for the purpose of the record, I am looking at these photographs at this time; and I have been in court for the last day 

and a half; and to tell you the truth, I am having a hard time figuring out which one is the defendant myself which would indicate to 

me this is a fair and impartial lineup. 

Which one is the defendant? 

MS. PRIORE: He is number two in the photographs -- number two from the left. 

THE COURT: Very well. I think this is one of the most fair lineups I have seen in a long time. I will allow defense 

counsel an exception, but these are all young males -- black males and apparently the same age and the same features as far as I am 

concerned. I certainly will overrule the objection of defense counsel at this time. (1R 20-22)(emphasis added). 

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals also considered this issue on appeal and concluded in its order of January 6, 1989 

as follows: 

In his first assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his motion 

to suppress the victim's in-court identification of him. Specifically, the appellant claims that the identification was 

tainted by an impermissibly suggestive pre-trial lineup. We disagree. 

Initially, we note that the six participants in the lineup at issue were all black males of the same general 

age, weight and height, and wearing substantially identical clothing. Therefore, we find that the lineup complied 

with the physical characteristics criteria enunciated in Thompson v. State, 438 P.2d 287, 289 (Okl.Cr.1968). 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 6
In Manson. 432 U.S. at 114. the Court listed the criteria to be examined in 

evaluating this issue: "reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of 

identification testimony.... The factors to be considered ... include the opportunity of the 

witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime. the witness' degree of attention, the 

accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the 

confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation". (See also, 

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972). 

The transcript of the trial held on March 3, 4, and 18. 1987 ("TR") reveals that the 

identification was independently reliable. The victim had an excellent opportunity to view 

the petitioner as he got out of his car and approached her and then as they discussed 

directions to various streets. It was broad daylight, petitioner wore no disguise or mask, 

and he was very close to the victim for some length of time (TR 26-30). 

The level of certainty of the victim at trial when she identified the petitioner was 

high. The victim stated in court that petitioner committed the robbery (TR 36-37). There 

is no evidence that the witness was the least bit uncertain in her identification at trial or 

in the lineup (TR 35-37). 

Finally, the length of time between the crime and the confrontation was not out of 

the ordinary. The crime occurred on October 24, 1986 and the lineup took place a few 

days later (TR 35). This is not an extraordinary length of time. The Supreme Court 

upheld an identification following a seven-month interlude in Neil v. Biggers. 409 U.S. at 

200. Weighing all the factors and considering the totality of the circumstances, there is 

no substantial likelihood of misidentification and petitioner's first ground has no merit. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 7
In his second ground, petitioner claims that the trial court abused its discretion in 

refusing to give his requested cautionary instruction regarding the identification by the 

victim. Habeas corpus relief is not available to set aside a conviction on the basis of 

erroneous jury instructions unless the error has such an effect on the trial that it is 

rendered fundamentally unfair. Brinlee v. Crisp. 608 F.2d 839, 850 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. 

denied. 444 U.S. 1047 (1980). In United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164 (1982), the 

Supreme Court determined that before obtaining habeas corpus relief based on a 

challenged jury instruction, a petitioner must show that the "'instruction by itself so 

infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,' not merely 

whether 'the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even universally condemned."' (citing 

Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 (1977)). 

The Oklahoma Court of Appeals has held m several cases that a cautionary 

instruction is not necessary if certain conditions are met: 1) there is a good opportunity 

for positive identification, 2) the witness is positive in the identification, 3) the 

identification is not weakened by prior failure to identify, and 4) the witness remains 

positive as to the identification even after cross-examination. Renfro v. State, 734 P.2d 

286, 288 (Okla.Crim.App. 1987); Pisano v. State, 636 P.2d 358 (Okla.Crim.App. 1981), 

cert. denied, 456 U.S. 963 (1982). 

As already discussed, it is clear that the victim in this case had a good opportunity 

to make a positive identification when she viewed the robber for several minutes in broad 

daylight and carried on an unobstructed face-to-face conversation with him. She was 

positive in her identification, identified him in the earlier lineup, and remained positive 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 8
about the identification throughout her testimony. The petitioner has failed to show that 

the failure to give a cautionary instruction regarding the victim's identification rendered 

the trial fundamentally unfair. His second claim has no merit. 

Finally, petitioner claims that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not 

perform an adequate factfinding procedure to resolve his claims on his direct appeal. 

Generally, errors occurring in state post-conviction proceedings are not sufficient to raise 

a federally cognizable issue as to the underlying state criminal conviction. Such claims 

represent an attack on a proceeding that is collateral to the detention of the prisoner and 

not on the detention itself. Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185 (10th Cir. 1989); 

Williams v. Missouri. 640 F.2d 140, 144 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 990 (1981). 

However, in Evins v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 393 (1985), the Supreme Court held that 

the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel attaches to criminal 

appeals in which a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to counsel and the 

procedures used in deciding such appeals must comport with due process and equal 

protection requirements. The Court earlier found the right to counsel on first appeal is 

fundamental. Ross v. Moffitt. 417 U.S. 600 (1974). 

Petitioner claims that the merits of his "factual dispute raised in his direct appeal 

brief' were not "adequately resolved in an adequate determination to afford him due 

process of law by a factfinding procedure employed by the state courts to afford him a full 

and fair determination of the merits of his factual issue." (Petitioner's Petition for a Writ 

of Habeas Corpus, pg. 10). He has not shown how the "factfinding procedure" used by the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was "inadequate". This court can perceive no 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 9
inadequacies in the discussion of fact and law contained in the final opinion of the Court 

of Criminal Appeals regarding petitioner's appeal issued on January 6, 1989.3 There is no 

merit to petitioner's third ground. 

Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is 

denied. 

-7u 

Dated this /f aay of '/ifaf , 1992. 

~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3 Even if the state court did not make an "adequate determination", petitioner has presented to this court the same claims 

of violation of his constitutional rights which he presented on appeal, and this court has considered their merits and found petitioner 

is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-5111 Document: 010110392298 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 10