Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06106/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06106-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

United States 0.>urt of Appeals 

Tenth Ci!':,Uit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 10 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DAVID CARL QUALLS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STEVE KAISER, Warden; LEXINGTON 

ASSESSMENT AND RECEPTION CENTER; THE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State of 

Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-6106 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-1865-R) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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 case is therefore ordered 

David Carl Qualls appeals the district court's denial of his 

habeas corpus petition. Qualls was convicted and sentenced in 

* 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: 90-6106 Document: 010110031892 Date Filed: 04/10/1991 Page: 1 
Oklahoma on two counts of distribution of a controlled dangerous 

substance. The state trial court set bail at $50,000. Qualls 

posted bond and was released on bail pending appeal of his 

conviction. Following the state's motion to reconsider, which was 

denied, and its application for writ of mandamus to the Oklahoma 

Court of Criminal Appeals, which was granted, the state trial 

court on remand revoked Qualls' bond, relying on the 

then-unpublished opinion in In re Brewer, 779 P.2d 137 (Okla. 

Crim. App. 1985). 

Filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254, Qualls' habeas corpus 

petition before the district court challenged the Oklahoma trial 

court's revocation of his bond as an ex post facto application of 

the Brewer decision. The district court denied his petition on 

the grounds that Brewer's application affected only procedural 

rights and, therefore, did not implicate the constitutional 

prohibition against ex post facto application of the law. We 

affirm. 

Qualls does 

bail on appeal. 

not argue that there exists a federal right to 

We agree with the district court that the only 

proper basis for his habeas corpus petition is his claim that the 

revocation of his bond resulted from an ex post facto application 

of the law. Generally, the prohibition against ex post facto 

application of the law applies to legislative enactments, not 

judicial interpretations. However, case law creating an 

"'unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute'" which 

is then retroactively applied, can operate like an ex post facto 

law. Coleman v. Saffle, 869 F.2d 1377, 1385 (10th Cir. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6106 Document: 010110031892 Date Filed: 04/10/1991 Page: 2 
1989)(quoting =B~o~u~i~e=---v=-=-·-C=i~t.v_~o~f"'-~C=o=l=wnb==i=a, 

(1964)), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1835 

378 u.s. 

(1990); 

347, 353 

Blair v. 

Armentrout, 916 F.2d 1310, 1330-31 (8th Cir. 1990)(ex post facto 

clause operates through the due process clause of the fourteenth 

amendment to "prevent state courts from making certain 

unforseeable doctrinal changes"). 

Nonetheless, we also agree with the district court that 

application of the then-unpublished Brewer decision, even were it 

an "unforeseeable judicial enlargement" of Oklahoma law, as Qualls 

claims, did not affect Qualls' substantive rights such as to 

implicate the ex post facto clause. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 

U.S. 282, 293 (1977)(no ex post facto violation where substantive 

rights not altered); Coleman, 869 F.2d at 1385. A change in the 

process for granting or denying bail on appeal affects only 

procedural rights. United States v. Affleck, 765 F.2d 944, 949 

(10th Cir. 1985); United States v. Mccahill, 765 F.2d 849, 850 

(9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Ballone, 762 F.2d 1381, 1383 

(11th Cir. 1985); United State v. Powell, 761 F.2d 1227, 1234 (8th 

Cir. 1985); United States v. Molt, 758 F.2d 1198, 1201 (7th Cir. 

1985); United States v. Crabtree, 754 F.2d 1200, 1201-02 (5th 

Cir.)(single judge decision), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905 (1985); 

United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 19, 21 (3d Cir. 1985). 

Under the current test, a retroactive application of a change 

of law would not affect Qualls' substantive rights unless it 

changed the crime with which he was indicted, the proof required 

to convict him of the crime, or the punishment he received for the 

crime. Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 433 (1987); Coleman, 869 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6106 Document: 010110031892 Date Filed: 04/10/1991 Page: 3 
F.2d at 1386 (citing Dobbert, 432 U.S. at 294). Although such a 

procedural change seriously disadvantages Qualls, that 

disadvantage is not enough to implicate his constitutional rights. 

See Coleman, 869 F.2d at 1387; Affleck, 765 F.2d at 951. 

On appeal, Qualls improperly raises or argues several points. 

First, in his docketing statement, Qualls presents a claim for 

unlawful taking of property. That claim was raised for the first 

time on appeal and was not argued on appeal, therefore, we decline 

to address it. Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 

1231 (10th Cir. 1990); Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 

(10th Cir. 1989). 

Second, although Qualls contends he is not challenging the 

merits of his state conviction, he argues on appeal that the state 

court erred in overruling his motion for new trial. An error of 

state law is not a proper basis for habeas relief. Pulley v. 

Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984). 

Finally, Qualls contends that the state court's alleged error 

violated his rights under the sixth and fourteenth amendments. 

This argument is raised for the first time on appeal and will not 

be considered. See Gillihan, 872 F.2d at 938. Also, the district 

court found that he had not exhausted his state court remedies 

with respect to his conviction. Qualls does not challenge this 

ruling on appeal. 

Qualls' petition for a certificate of probable cause is 

GRANTED. For substantially the same reasons as those contained in 

the district court's memorandum opinion dated March 2, 1990, the 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6106 Document: 010110031892 Date Filed: 04/10/1991 Page: 4 
judgment of the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6106 Document: 010110031892 Date Filed: 04/10/1991 Page: 5