Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06405/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06405-0/pdf.json

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

---

!1'1L.~1J 

United Stat'.'s Court of App.:;:b UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'f"..-r'i r ·· ., 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 1 0 1992 

RICHARD L. GRIMMETT, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

STEPHAN KAISER, Warden, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

) Clerl: 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-6405 

) (D.C. No. CIV-91-1132-A) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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

Petitioner-appellant Richard Grimmett filed a 28 u.s.c § 2254 

petition seeking relief from his Oklahoma conviction. He had 

previously sought state collateral relief on the same 

constitutional arguments. See Okla . Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1080 

(West 1986 & 1991 Cum. Sup . ) . The state court denied relief 

because petitioner had failed to take a direct appeal. See 

Grimmett v. Oklahoma, No. PC 91-0289, unpub. order (Okla. Cr. App. 

June 17, 1991) (citing Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1080; Webb v. 

* 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 estoppal. 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 determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-6405 Document: 010110240436 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 1
State, 661 P.2d 904 (Okla. Cr. App. 1983). Petitioner appeals 

from the federal district court's judgment dismissing the petition 

based on procedural bar. 

The Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's 

claims solely because he had not articulated sufficient reason for 

failing to file a direct appeal or requesting an appeal out of 

time. The court noted that resolving his issues under these 

circumstances would erode the limitation associated with state 

post-conviction relief and undermine the purpose of a direct 

appeal. Grimmett, No. PC 91-0289, unpub. order at 2. This 

represents an independent and adequate state procedural ground, 

see Gilbert v. Scott, 941 F.2d 1065, 1067-68 (10th Cir. 1991), and 

petitioner has failed to "demonstrate cause for the default and 

actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation[s] of 

federal law •... " Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2565 

(1991). Nor has he "demonstrate[d] that failure to consider the 

claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Id. 

See also McClesky v. Zant, 111 s. Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991). 

Therefore, the district court correctly held that his claims are 

now procedurally barred. 

In the absence of "a rational argument on the law or the 

facts," petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

DENIED. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962); 

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 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6405 Document: 010110240436 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 2
certificate of probable cause, 28 u.s.c. § 2253, is DENIED, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6405 Document: 010110240436 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 3