Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02867/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02867-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Cc .rt of Appeals 'l'i:nth Circnit 

MAY 2 21989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-2867 

CARL EMMITT PRICHARD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 87-K-1766) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Carl Emmitt Prichard, prose. 

Michael J. Norton, Acting United States Attorney, James K. Bredar, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and COOK, Chief Judge.* 

*The Honorable H. Dale Cook, Chief Judge, United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, sitting by 

designation. 

PER CURIAM. 

Appellate Case: 87-2867 Document: 01019963466 Date Filed: 05/22/1989 Page: 1 
Carl Emmitt Prichard was convicted following a bench trial of 

attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 2113(a). The 

conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. 

Prichard, 781 F.2d 179 (10th Cir. 1986). Prichard now appeals 

from an order of the district court denying his motion to vacate, 

set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255 1 . 

In the motion to vacate, which was filed with an accompanying 

memorandum brief, Prichard articulated his grounds for relief as 

follows: 

(1) Rule 23(a), F.R.C.P. was violated to defendant's 

prejudice by the failure to comply therewith, thus, 

rendering defendant's waiver jury trial nonvoluntary, 

knowing and intelligent. 

(2) Under the facts of this case, 

the attempt statute to defendant's 

constitutional violation, as 

unconstitutionally vague as applied. 

the application of 

conduct was the 

"attempt" was 

(3) The district court misapplied the relevant legal 

standards in determining defendant's guilt. 

On appeal Prichard has reasserted these grounds for relief and 

further asks for recusal of the district judge. 

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the parties' 

appellate briefs, and we agree with the district court that 

Prichard has not demonstrated a basis for relief. The only issue 

justifying mention is the failure to reduce to writing Prichard's 

knowing acquiescence in waiver of his constitutional right to a 

jury trial as required under Fed. R. Crim. P. 23(a). Collateral 

1 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2867 Document: 01019963466 Date Filed: 05/22/1989 Page: 2 
relief is not available when all that is shown is a failure to 

comply with· the formal requirements of. a rule of criminal 

procedure in the absence of any indication that the defendant was 

prejudiced by the technical error. Davis v. United States, 417 

U.S. 333, 346 (1974). In this case there is no indication that 

· the lack of a document memorializing Prichard's waiver of trial by 

jury resulted in anything less than a knowing, intelligent waiver. 

We believe the other two issues raised in the motion to 

vacate were fairly encompassed in Prichard's direct appeal. See 

Prichard, 781 F.2d at 181-82. Absent an intervening change in the 

law of a circuit, issues disposed of on direct appeal generally 

will not be considered on a collateral attack by a motion pursuant 

to § 2255. United States v. Nolan, 571 F.2d 528, 530 (10th Cir. 

1978). There is no new law applicable to Prichard's criminal 

conduct that would inure to his benefit. 

Finally, recusal must be predicated on extrajudicial conduct. 

Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). Prichard's 

allegations of bias and prejudice against the district judge are 

based only on the district judge's prior judicial contacts with 

him. This is insufficient to support recusal. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2867 Document: 01019963466 Date Filed: 05/22/1989 Page: 3