Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06063/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06063-0/pdf.json

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

---

" 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RICHARD VAL CREWS, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 1 0 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 91-6063 

) 

JACK COWLEY, Warden; ROBERT H. ) 

HENRY, Attorney General, State of ) 

Oklahoma; GARY MAYNARD, Director, ) 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections,) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1532-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

* 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: 91-6063 Document: 010110118870 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Crews, a state prisoner, appeals the denial of habeas 

corpus relief. 

In 1986, Mr. Crews entered his plea of guilty to the charge 

of second-degree murder and the Oklahoma court sentenced Mr. Crews 

to thirty-two years imprisonment. 

As Mr. Crews is not challenging his conviction but rather is 

challenging the Oklahoma procedure of allowing an inmate earned 

credits against his sentence, some background information 

concerning this process will be helpful in understanding this 

appeal. 

In 1986, at the time of Mr. Crews's conviction, an inmate 

could earn up to three earned credits for each work day the inmate 

was engaged in specified activities. See Okla. Stat. tit. 57, 

§§ 138 and 224 (1981). In 1988 the Oklahoma Legislature amended 

this law and provided that an inmate, depending on various factors 

such as work evaluation, personal hygiene and maintenance of 

living area could earn up to forty-four credits per month. An 

inmate could also earn additional credits for the successful 

completion of specified courses; however, the amended law reduced 

from three to one the amount of earned credits available for each 

day of specified work. 

In 1989, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decided 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6063 Document: 010110118870 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 2 
Mahler v. State, 776 P.2d 565 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989), which was 

read by some as holding inmates were entitled to receive credits 

under both laws (i.e., the law in effect at the time of the 

commission of the crime plus any benefits accruing under the new 

1988 law). Mahler was withdrawn by the court before the year was 

out. Mahler v. State, 781 P.2d 835 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). 

Mahler was followed by Ekstrand v. State, 791 P.2d 92 (Okla. 

Crim. App. 1990), which held that inmates who were disadvantaged 

by the amended statute were entitled to credits allotted under the 

statute effective on the date their crime was committed. Id. at 

95. In short, as a result of Ekstrand, Oklahoma permitted every 

prisoner to accrue good time based either upon the statute which 

was effective on the date the crime was committed or under the new 

statute, whichever was the most advantageous to the inmate. 

This case was followed by State ex rel. Maynard v. Page, 798 

P.2d 628 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990), wherein the Oklahoma court 

clarified Ekstrand and Mahler by holding that an inmate was not 

entitled to the benefits of both laws. In Maynard, the Oklahoma 

court specifically stated it had never held in Mahler that an 

inmate was entitled to the benefits of both statutes. Id. at 629. 

After unsuccessfully exhausting his state remedies, Mr. Crews 

filed his prose action in federal court alleging: (1) that§ 138 

of the amended statute as applied to him is ex post facto; (2) the 

Oklahoma decision in Ekstrand violates the due process clause by 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6063 Document: 010110118870 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 3 
allowing Mr. Crews to lose credit toward his sentence; and (3) 

that Oklahoma is vindictively withholding an effective remedy. 

The district court turned to Devine v. New Mexico Dept. of 

Corrections, 866 F.2d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1989), which defined an 

ex post facto law as one imposing additional punishment to that 

prescribed at the time of the commission of the act. The district 

court then considered Ekstrand (under which the inmate obtains the 

best of either the old or the new statute) and found there was no 

ex post facto violation in the application of§ 138, as construed, 

to Mr. Crews. The district court decided the remaining issues 

adversely to Mr. Crews. 

On appeal, Mr. Crews argues that Mahler expressed the law and 

vested his right to receive good time under both statutes and thus 

the judicial overruling of Mahler by the subsequent Oklahoma 

decisions amounted to an ex post facto deprivation. In short, Mr. 

Crews argues that once the Oklahoma courts gave him the benefits 

of both statutes, the Oklahoma court could not take this away from 

him. 

We are not persuaded by Mr. Crews's 

amended statute does not apply to 

arguments. First, the 

Mr. Crews in the event its 

application is disadvantageous to him. The holdings in Ekstrand 

and in Maynard have been implemented by regulations to assure Mr. 

Crews is not deprived of earned time. In short, Mr. Crews is 

receiving that good time to which he was originally entitled or 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-6063 Document: 010110118870 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 4 
that under the amended law, whichever is to his advantage. 

Second, the Oklahoma decisions have clearly stated that the 

holding of Mahler as advocated by Mr. Crews was not in fact the 

holding of Mahler. See Maynard, 798 P.2d at 629. In short, Mr. 

Crews does not have any type of a vested right to the benefits of 

both statutes. Even had Mahler briefly been the law it was 

clearly overruled by its withdrawal from publication. Mr. Crews 

could not gain any vested right to an erroneous interpretation of 

law. Mileham v. Simmons, 588 F.2d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir. 1979). He 

is no worse off than he would have been had the error not been 

made. 

Mr. Crews argues that the 1988 amendment is severable into 

unconstitutional portions. We simply are not persuaded by Mr. 

Crews's arguments as the Oklahoma courts have found and we 

agree that the 1988 law, as interpreted by the courts of 

Oklahoma and implemented by its executive branch, have worked no 

deprivation of Mr. Crews's earned credits. 

Mr. Crews, acting upon the assumption that Mahler is correct 

law, next argues that the subsequent decision of Ekstrand denied 

him due process. Our holding that Mr. Crews's assumption is 

incorrect renders this question moot. Mr. Crews argues the 

decision in Ekstrand denied him due process as it eliminates the 

opportunity to earn extra credits that was suggested by Mahler. 

We have held that he was never entitled to the benefit of both 

statutes. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-6063 Document: 010110118870 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 5 
. . 

Mr. Crews finally argues that the state remedies are 

insufficient and have been implemented to be vindictive. He 

argues that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is not 

providing a proper remedy. It is clear through the numerous 

opinions by that court that an adequate remedy is available. Mr. 

Crews simply does not like the procedures set forth by the 

Oklahoma courts. 

The decision of the district court is affirmed for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in its Memorandum 

Opinion. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 91-6063 Document: 010110118870 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 6