Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07001/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07001-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeal::; Tenth Clr.:!uit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 11 1992 

EOBERT L. HOECKER 

ALLEN WAYNE ELDRIDGE, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

H.N. SCOTT, Warden; THE ATTORNEY ) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

Clerl: . 

No. 92-7001 

(D. C. No. CV-91-115-P) 

( E • D • Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TA.CHA 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. Allen Eldridge appeals, pro se, the denial of habeas 

relief. 

* 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: 92-7001 Document: 010110247678 Date Filed: 05/11/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Eldridge was convicted 

two 

in state court of first degree 

rape after former conviction of or more felonies and was 

sentenced to fifty years in prison. The Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence 

to twenty years. Mr. Eldridge unsuccessfully pursued post 

conviction relief. 

Mr. Eldridge filed his prose habeas conviction in the United 

States District Court asserting: (1) "erroneous afterformer"; (2) 

improper jury instructions; and (3) an improper Allen charge. 

The district court held Mr. Eldridge was not deprived of due 

process when the state criminal appeals court modified defendant's 

sentence to twenty years as it represented the minimum allowable 

statutory sentence. See Carbray v. Champion, 905 F.2d 314 (10th 

Cir. 1990) (where state court reduces sentence to a permissible 

term, appellant suffers no prejudice amounting to a due process 

violation). The district court determined the state trial court 

record failed to support defendant's remaining assertions and 

denied Mr. Eldridge habeas relief. 

Mr. Eldridge appeals, prose, asserting: (1) his sentence is 

null and void as it is excessive; (2) one of his prior convictions 

was not final; (3) one of his prior convictions was a misdemeanor; 

and (3) the district court's factual findings are clearly 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7001 Document: 010110247678 Date Filed: 05/11/1992 Page: 2
erroneous. 

sentence. 

He asserts he is entitled to a lesser minimum 

In order for us to reach the conclusion urged by Mr. 

Eldridge, we would first have to ignore the factual findings of 

the Oklahoma courts, and this we are not permitted to do. Second, 

Mr. Eldridge is now raising issues and factual assertions that 

were not raised before the trial court. Third, the record on 

appeal fails to disclose Mr. Eldridge exhausted in the state court 

the issues he is now raising in this appeal. Fourth, the record 

on appeal fails to support Mr . Eldridge's contentions. Finally, 

Mr. Eldridge fails to persuade us the district court's decision 

was erroneous. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's 

order dated and entered December 23, 1991. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-7001 Document: 010110247678 Date Filed: 05/11/1992 Page: 3