Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05228/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05228-0/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 

LANCER. STOREY, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cb:uit 

I,. Y 3 - 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-5228 

v. ) 

) 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; S.W. KAISER; ) 

and ATTORNEY GENERAL of ) 

Oklahoma, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. 90-C-0160-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5228 Document: 010110106458 Date Filed: 05/03/1991 Page: 1 
I r 

~-

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. We affirm. 

Petitioner, Lance Storey, filed a petition in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma 

asserting as grounds for relief: 

The [state] trial Court did not follow Oklahoma Statutes 

nor case law in taking plea of guilty. The trial Court 

did not place Mr. Story [sic] under oath as is set out 

by statute. 

Further, Mr. Story [sic] was entitled by law to an 

Evidentiary Hearing in the matter of his Post-Conviction 

Relief Application. The trial Court in having violated 

these rights denied Mr. Story [sic] his Constitutional 

Rights to Due Process and Equal Protection of the law as 

set out by the 14th. Amendment .... 

Mr. Story [sic] a layman at 

alleged Ineffective assistance of 

plea was not voluntarily entered 

due process. 

law gave issue to and 

counsel and that his 

and he had been denied 

The district court referred the petition to a magistrate judge, 

who ultimately filed a report. The magistrate reported Mr. Storey 

had failed to show how or why his counsel was ineffective. He 

further reported that the asserted violations of state law do not 

rise to the level of a deprivation of a federally guaranteed right 

because they attack a proceeding "that is collateral to the 

detention of the prisoner and not on the detention itself." Over 

the objections of the petitioner, the report was adopted by the 

district court. This appeal followed. 

Our examination of the record discloses the magistrate judge 

correctly found that petitioner did not establish what his 

attorney did or failed to do that was deficient. That failure is 

sufficient to deprive him of relief because we have not been shown 

how the conduct of counsel fell below an objective standard of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5228 Document: 010110106458 Date Filed: 05/03/1991 Page: 2 
... 

reasonableness. 

1991). 1 

Tapia v. Tansey, 926 F.2d 1554, 1564 (10th Cir. 

The magistrate judge concluded the remaining matters raised 

by petitioner had been subjected by him to state post-conviction 

review resulting in an application of state procedural bar by the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. See Storey v. State, PC 

89-657 (1989). (R. 1, tab. 8, attach. D). Because the state 

court clearly rested its decision on the procedural bar, the 

remaining issues are not subject to federal habeas corpus review. 

Shafer v. Stratton, 906 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

111 S. Ct. (1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

1

Although petitioner contends 

the district court that cured 

the record. He also relates 

executed by "court appointed 

before us. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

he filed a supplemental pleading in 

this defect, that pleading is not in 

facts contained in an affidavit 

counsel." We have no such affidavit 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5228 Document: 010110106458 Date Filed: 05/03/1991 Page: 3