Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06259/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06259-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEAN JOSEPH ODOM, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appedn Tenth Circuit 

DEC O 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk . ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-6259 

vs. 

EDWARD L. EVANS, Warden, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, State 

of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-637-C) 

(W. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant Dean J. Odom appeals from the district 

court's denial of his 28 u.s.c. S 2254 habeas corpus petition and 

certificate of probable cause to appeal,~ id. S 2253. 

Petitioner was convicted pursuant to guilty pleas of two counts of 

second degree murder, and he was sentenced to an indeterminate 

sentence of ten years to life as required by the Oklahoma statute 

then in effect. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, S 701.4 (repealed 

in 1976). Petitioner contends that his due process rights have 

* 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. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-6259 Document: 010110489104 Date Filed: 12/03/1991 Page: 1
Appellate Case: 91-6259 Document: 010110489104 Date Filed: 12/03/1991 Page: 2
been violated because his state court guilty plea was not 

s.upported by a factual basis in the record. 

Petitioner cites State ex rel. Young v. Warren, 536 P.2d 965 

(Okla. Cr. 1975) for the proposition that the state court violated 

his due process rights by accepting his guilty plea to second 

degree murder without establishing a factual basis for the plea. 

Yet courts generally are not required by the due process clause of 

the federal constitution to establish a factual basis for a guilty 

plea. See Sena v. Romero, 617 F.2d 579, 581 (10th Cir. 1980). 

See also Smith v. Mccotter, 786 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1986); 

Rodriguez v. Ricketts, 777 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1985); Willbright v. 

Smith, 745 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1984). The due process clause may 

require an inquiry by the court in certain circumstances such as a 

situation in which a defendant protests innocence. See North 

Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). Petitioner, however, has 

not alleged any such circumstances. He therefore has not raised a 

federal constitutional claim warranting relief under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. 1 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 

of an important federal right, nor has he demonstrated that his 

issues could be resolved differently or are debatable among 

jurists or deserving of further treatment by the court. See 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). We therefore DENY the 

1 Petitioner raised numerous arguments below, including a sixth 

amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim. None of the 

arguments, including the ineffective assistance claim, raises any 

basis for relief under 28 U.S.C § 2254. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6259 Document: 010110489104 Date Filed: 12/03/1991 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 91-6259 Document: 010110489104 Date Filed: 12/03/1991 Page: 4
certificate of probable cause and DISMISS the appeal. See 28 

u.s.c. S 2253. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6259 Document: 010110489104 Date Filed: 12/03/1991 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 91-6259 Document: 010110489104 Date Filed: 12/03/1991 Page: 6