Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06175/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06175-0/pdf.json

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

---

... I; lLttb 

United Stat~~ CQμ .. , of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 2 0 1990 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

KENNETH DON DULWORTH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STEPHEN KAISER and ATTORNEY ) 

GENERAL, State of Oklahoma, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 89-6175 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-0186-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, ANDERSON and TACHA, 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 

Kenneth Don Dulworth, appearing prose, appeals the denial of 

· his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

S 2254. Mr. Dulworth was convicted in the district court of 

Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, of attempted robbery with 

* 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: 89-6175 Document: 01019971931 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 1 
firearms after former conviction of two or more felonies. Okla. 

Stat. tit. 21, S 5l(B) (1983). He alleges in his petition that 

the state improperly relied upon certain prior convictions to 

satisfy the two prior felony conviction requirement for enhancing 

his sentence. Oklahoma state courts have rejected Mr. Dulworth's 

contention that his sentence was improperly enhanced. 

Mr. Dulworth does not dispute that his criminal record 

includes the convictions listed below, prior to the one now in 

question. His argument is that the first three (two juvenile and 

one reduced charge) were improperly relied upon: 

6/14/67 Case #33062 Unauthorized Use 

of Motor Vehicle 

6/14/67 Case #33063 Burglary 2nd 

degree 

10/9/68 Case #34678 Burglary 2nd 

degree AFCF · 

10/7/77 · CRF-77-1886 Carrying a 

Firearm AFCF 

10/16/78 CRF-78-1869 Burglary 1st 

degree 

3/14/79 CRF-78-4449 Carrying a 

Firearm AFCF 

Brief of Defendant-Appellee at 2-3. 

As the district court points out, even if the first three 

convictions are ignored, there are still three convictions which 

could be used to enhance Mr. Dulworth's sentence. Mr. Dulworth 

does not deny that fact. In the circumstances, improper reliance 

upon some prior convictions is at most harmless error. See 

Beavers v. Alford, 582 F. Supp. 1504, 1506 (W.D. Okla. 1984); 

Miller v. State, 629 P.2d 370, 371 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6175 Document: 01019971931 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 2 
Mr. Dulworth's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause are 

granted. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6175 Document: 01019971931 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 3