Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01513/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01513-0/pdf.json

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

---

,, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

. FILED 

United Stat.es Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

MARK P. TURNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HERB MASCHNER; ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

STATE OF KANSAS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

FEH O 91989 

> ROBERT L. HOECKER ~ Clerk 

) 

) No. 88-1513 

) (D.C. No. 87-3065) 

) (D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON , and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appell ate record, this panel 

has determined unanimousl y 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 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

granting habeas corpus relief in an action commenced pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. In its order, the district court expressly 

found that petitioner's gu i lty plea was "involuntary and cannot 

withstand attack." The matter was "remanded" to the state trial 

court with instructions to ''vacate" petitioner's sentence and 

"reconsider disposition of petitioner's guilty plea." 

Appellate Case: 88-1513 Document: 01019962694 Date Filed: 02/09/1989 Page: 1 
Petitioner's argument on appeal, as we understand it, is that 

the district court erred in not vacating the conviction as well as 

the underlying sentence. 

This, however, overlooks the fundamental purpose and 

limitation of habeas corpus. Historically, the principal purpose 

of the remedy of habeas corpus has been to secure release from 

unlawful physical confinement. Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 63 

(1968); Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Federal 

habeas corpus does not provide an additional appeal from a state 

court conviction. Sinclair v. Turner, 447 F.2d 1158, 1161 (10th 

Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1048 (1972). 

We agree with the district court's assessment as apparently 

does respondent, that the guilty plea is infirm. Implicit in the 

district court's order was a determination that petitioner's 

present custody was unlawful and that habeas corpus relief was 

appropriate. 

Generally, a determination that present custody is unlawful 

does not necessarily bar retrial or further proceedings on the 

original charge. Bromley v. Crisp, 561 F.2d 1351, 1364 (10th Cir. 

1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908 (1978). 

We assume that it was the intent of the district court to 

grant habeas corpus relief conditionally because the order 

expressly contemplates further proceedings in the state trial 

court. 

In order that this matter be resolved as "law and justice 

require" (28 U.S.C. § 2243) the judgment of the district court is 

modified to provide that a writ of habeas corpus is issued 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1513 Document: 01019962694 Date Filed: 02/09/1989 Page: 2 
• 

I 

conditionally. The district court will order petitioner's release 

from custody, unless, within thirty days of the issuance of the 

mandate of this court, petitioner is allowed to plead anew in the 

state trial court. If there are further proceedings of the type 

contemplated by this order within the time allowed, the district 

court shall dismiss the§ 2254 proceeding. See White v. Gaffney, 

435 F.2d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 1971). 

As modified, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. It is further ordered 

that the stay issued by the district court on May 16, 1988, is 

vacated. In view of the disposition of this appeal, petitioner's 

application for release pending appeal is denied as moot and also 

for the reason that the application was not presented in the first 

instance to the district court. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1513 Document: 01019962694 Date Filed: 02/09/1989 Page: 3