Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06194/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06194-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L ... ~ u United Stata Court of Apput, Tenth Cirr.ult 

CLYDELL RANDLE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

VS. 

STEVE HARGETT, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEC 2 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. : 92-6194 

(D . C. No : 91-CV-1371 ) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges . ** 

Petitioner Clydell Randle appeals the district court's denial 

of his petition f or writ of habeas corpus, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and applies for a certificate of 

probable cause. 28 U. S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 

u.s.c. § 2253. 

A jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, 

found Petitioner guilty of rape and sentenced him to 199 years 

imprisonment. At sentencing on June 30, 1978, Petitioner pleade d 

guilty to four other felony offenses and was sentenced to 35 years 

* 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 materially 

assist the d etermination 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. 

-1-

Appellate Case: 92-6194 Document: 010110154911 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 1 
imprisonment for each guilty plea offense, with the 35-year 

sentences running concurrently with each other and with his rape 

sentence. Also at this sentencing hearing, Petitioner completed 

factual summary forms for all five offenses. The factual summary 

of Petitioner's rape conviction was on one form, and the factual 

summaries of his guilty plea offenses were on another form. The 

summary of facts form for the rape conviction clearly advised 

Petitioner of his right to appeal, and explained the procedures he 

must follow to perfect an appeal, including his right to court 

appointed counsel and his right to a transcript at state expense. 

On this form, Petitioner indicated that he understood the rights 

explained to him and that his answers to questions on the form 

were freely and voluntarily given. Petitioner stated in two 

places on the form that he did not wish to appeal his rape 

conviction, and additionally stated that he did not wish to have 

an attorney appointed for his appeal nor did he want a transcript 

provided at state expense. Pursuant to established procedure, 

Petitioner, as well as his attorney, the district attorney, and 

the trial judge, signed the factual summary form. 

Petitioner did not appeal his rape conviction, but on May 18, 

1989, eleven years after his sentence was imposed, he filed his 

first application for post-conviction relief in the Oklahoma trial 

court, alleging that he was denied his right to a direct appeal 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6194 Document: 010110154911 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 2 
due to ineffective assistance of counsel. 1 The trial court denied 

the post-conviction application, finding that Petitioner had been 

advised of his right to appeal and had not shown sufficient reason 

for bypassing his direct appeal. Although the Oklahoma district 

court's order denying the application advised Petitioner of the 

procedures he must follow in order to appeal the denial of post~ 

conviction relief to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 

Petitioner failed to appeal the denial of this first 

post-conviction applicat i on . 

On February 20, 1991, Petitioner filed a second application 

for post-conviction relief in Oklahoma district court asserting 

ineffective assistance of counsel in that his failure to directly 

appeal his conviction in 1978 was the fault of his attorney, whom 

Petitioner had paid to file the appeal but who had failed to do 

so. The trial court denied this second post-conviction 

application, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed 

the denial on appeal, applying a procedural bar to Petitioner's 

claims. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that Petitioner 

1 After reviewing the record, it is unclear to us whether 

Petitioner's first state post-conviction application raised the 

issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. It is also unclear to 

us after reviewing the Oklahoma district court's denial of 

Petitioner's first post-conviction application whether the 

district court addressed the ineffective assistance of counsel 

issue in denying Petitioner relief. However, it is clear after 

reviewing both the Oklahoma district court's denial of 

Petitioner's second state application for post-conviction relief 

and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of that 

denial that b o th Oklahoma courts f ound that his first petition 

raised an ineffective assistance of c ounsel claim which the 

Oklahoma district court denied, thereby creating a procedural bar 

to a second petition raising the same ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim. Okla. Stat . Ann., t i t. 22, § 1086 (West 1986). We 

defer t o the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' interpretation. 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-6194 Document: 010110154911 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 3 
raised the same issue in his second application that he raised in 

his first application and that he knowingly waived his right to 

appeal the first application's denial. 

Petitioner filed his first federal habeas petition on August 

27, 1991, and the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma adopted the magistrate's findings and 

conclusions, holding that "Petitioner's claims [were] barred 

because of the procedural default in state court." We affirm the 

district court's decision using substantially the same reasoning 

as used in the magistrate's report. 

In Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S. Ct. 2546 (1991), the Supreme 

Court held that "in all cases in which a state prisoner has 

defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an 

independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas 

review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate 

cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the 

alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to 

consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of 

justice." Id. at 2565. In order to show "miscarriage of 

justice," a petitioner must show actual innocence. Sawyer v. 

Whitley, 112 S. Ct. 2514, 2519 (1992). 

Petitioner has defaulted his federal claim in state court 

pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule. In 

Petitioner's first post-conviction application in Oklahoma 

district court, he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel which the Oklahoma district court denied. However, 

Petitioner failed to appeal the denial. Because he failed to 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6194 Document: 010110154911 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 4 
appeal the denial of his first post-conviction application, the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that he was procedurally 

barred under Oklahoma law from raising the ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim in a subsequent post-conviction application. 

Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 22, § 1086 (West 1986). 

Petitioner's only attempt to show cause in federal district 

court for his failure to appeal the denial of his first postconviction petition was his assertion that he was transferred to 

another correctional facility, and the law library supervisor 

failed to transfer Petitioner's legal documents and records to the 

new facility. We hold that this does not show cause for his 

failure to appeal the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, 

because it was not necessary that Petitioner possess all of his 

legal documents in order to file a Notice of Appeal. See McCoy v. 

Newsome, 953 F.2d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 

2283 (1992) (petitioner did not allege sufficient cause when he 

claimed that he was denied opportunity to examine trial transcript 

because he failed to show that "there were not available to him 

alternative devices that would have fulfilled the same 

functions"). Therefore, Petitioner is barred from raising the 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim on federal habeas. 

Petitioner's only other means of gaining federal habeas 

review is a claim of actual innocence. Sawyer, 112 S. Ct. at 

2519. However, in his§ 2254 petition to the federal district 

court, Petitioner did not claim actual innocence, but contested 

only the enhancement of his sentence. 

- 5-

Appellate Case: 92-6194 Document: 010110154911 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 5 
In the absence of a "rational argument in law or fact," 

petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. See 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 323 (1989); 28 U. S . C. 

§ 1915(d). Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of 

the denial of a federal right, see Lozada v. Deeds, 111 S . Ct . 

860, 861-62 (1991); thus, petitioner's request for a certificate 

of probable cause, 28 U. S . C. § 2253, is DENIED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED . 

SO ORDERED. 

-6 -

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6194 Document: 010110154911 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 6