Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05024/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05024-0/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 States Court of Appeals Tenth circuit 

ROBERT R. ZIEGLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

SEP O 7 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 90-5024 

RON CHAMPION, Warden, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D. C. No. 83-C-248-C) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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( 1 ); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Ziegler appeals, prose, the denial of habeas corpus 

relief under 28 U.S.C. S 2254. 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Ziegler was tried, convicted and sentenced by an Oklahoma 

jury in 1977. The jury convicted Mr. Ziegler of six felonies, 

including two counts of rape, two counts of sodomy, burglary in 

the first degree, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The 

jury sentenced Mr. Ziegler under Oklahoma's habitual offender 

statute as Mr. Ziegler had prior convictions. The total sentences 

amounted to life plus 115 years. 

Mr. Ziegler filed a direct appeal and the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the 

sentences as a portion 

which Mr. Ziegler had 

unconstitutional. 

forty-five years. 

These 

of the habitual offender statute, under 

been sentenced, had been declared 

modified sentences totaled life plus 

Mr. Ziegler then filed his first petition for habeas relief 

in the federal courts. The result of this petition was that Mr. 

Ziegler was returned to a state court for resentencing by a jury. 

In 1984, Mr. Ziegler again faced an Oklahoma jury where he 

was represented by counsel. This jury heard the evidence and 

resentenced Mr. Ziegler. These sentences totaled 510 years. 

Mr. Ziegler appealed these sentences to the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the sentences. Mr. Ziegler then 

filed this petition for habeas wherein he set forth seven grounds 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 2 
for relief: ( 1 ) violation of due process not to allow 

presentation of evidence relating to guilt at the punishment stage 

of trial; (2) suppression of evidence relative to guilt; (3) the 

enhanced punishment statute was invalid as being in violation of 

the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States 

Constitution; (4) the trial court erred when no retrial was held 

on guilt; (5) the sentences imposed on rehearing should be vacated 

and modified to the minimum because of jury composition; (6) 

others similarly situated have had punishment reduced to the 

minimum; (7) the resentencing procedures violated the Double 

Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

The United States District Court referred this petition to a 

magistrate who issued his report and recommendation. The United 

States District Court subsequently denied Mr. Ziegler relief. 

On appeal, Mr. Ziegler sets forth the following seven issues: 

1. Did the district court deny appellant due 

process and equal protection when it denied relief 

concerning error of state court not to allow appellant 

to present evidence of innocence? 

2. Did the district court deny due process and 

equal protection by its interpretation of state law 

concerning resentencings, when state law opinions on 

resentencings are contrary to the district court 

interpretation? 

3. Does appellant have an equal protection 

to either be granted a new trial or release, since 

other person who had this issue was prohibited 

being sentenced by a new jury except where 

sentence had no lower range of punishment? 

claim 

every 

from 

their 

4. Did the district court deny appellant due 

process of law by denying relief and not make findings 

concerning suppressed evidence claims? 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 3 
5. Did the district court deny due process and 

equal protection when it denied relief concerning 

appellant's ex post facto argument where the appellant 

was sentenced under a statute that did not become 

effective until years after his conviction which 

provided a greater punishment? 

6. Did the district court deny due process and 

equal protection when it denied appellant relief 

concerning his claims of ex post facto violations by 

being resentenced under a punishment scheme that 

provides a greater punishment? 

7. Did the district court and state court err 

when they denied relief concerning appellant's claims of 

double jeopardy and violation of both state and federal 

constitutions? 

Initially we note that Mr. Ziegler has placed great reliance 

on Nipps v. State, 626 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981), and we 

further note that neither the state nor the district court 

addressed this case. Oklahoma enacted a statute by which a 

defendant is to be sentenced by a jury. Nipps stands for the 

proposition that a reviewing state court may modify an illegal 

jury sentence down to the minimum but if there be no minimum 

provided by law the case must be remanded to a jury for 

resentencing. In Nipps, the court referred the resentencing to a 

new jury that had not adjudicated Nipps' guilt. It therefore 

follows that the many meanings Mr. Ziegler attributes to Nipps are 

not correct. 

Another matter raised by Mr. Ziegler should be addressed. 

Mr. Ziegler contends that the district court failed to rule upon 

issues raised. Mr. Ziegler filed two motions to produce in state 

court. The district court found that no motions to produce were 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 4 
filed in federal court. Mr. Ziegler felt this watered down some 

of his arguments concerning his "suppressed evidence claim.'' At 

worst, this is harmless error. Mr. Ziegler's "suppressed evidence 

claim" revolves around his assertion that the state court should 

have conducted "sperm tests." Assertions of error predicated upon 

error in a state court's admission or denial of evidence are not 

reviewable in federal court. 

Having addressed these two issues, we AFFIRM the actions of 

the district court for substantially the same reasons set forth in 

the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate filed on 

May 30, 1989, a copy thereof being attached hereto. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 5 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

ROBERT RANDALL ZEIGLER ) 

) pi - Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 83-C-248-C 

I L E D 

MAY 3 O 1989 

) 

RON CHAMPION, ) Jae!, C. Sil~er, Clerk 

) 

Defendant. U. S. DISTRICT COURT ) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE 

Now before the Court for consideration is the Petition for a 

Writ of Habeas Corpus of Robert Randall Zeigler. 

The Petitioner is currently incarcerated serving five 100 

year consecutive sentences and one ten year consecutive sentence. 

The history of Petitioner's case is exhaustively set out in 

Respondent's Response (at pp. 1-3). To briefly summarize, 

Petitioner was tried and sentenced by an Oklahoma jury in 1977 

for two counts of rape, two counts of robbery, first degree 

burglary, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, after former 

felony convictions. Shortly thereafter, in an unrelated case, 

the enhancement statute for sentencing third time offenders was 

declared unconstitutional. 

On direct appeal the convictions were affirmed but the 

sentences reduced. Two months later, the United Supreme Court 

(Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 (1980)), held that one sentenced 

under the invalid statute was deprived of liberty without due 

process of law where the state appellate court had affirmed the 

sentence. The court held that the defendant has a statutory 

right to have punishment fixed by a jury. Hicks, at 347. 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 6 
J 

Thereafter, Zeigler petitioned this Court for habeas relief 

asking that his sentences be voided under Hicks, and/or modified 

to the statutory minimum. 

On January 5, 1984, this Court delayed ruling on Zeigler's 

Petition, "pending_ the resentencing in the state courts of 

Oklahoma". On April 4, 1984, Zeigler was resentenced by a j_ga 

after hearing evidence from the victims and from Zeigler. On May 

3, 1985, the habeas Petition was dismissed without prejudice on 

Zeigler's own motion, pending the outcome of his state appeal. 

Apparently not satisfied with the resentencing and appeal, 

Zeigler again seeks habeas relief raising seven (7) grounds. 

Respondents argue that this and all the other grounds should be 

dismissed under Rule 9 (b) of the Rules Governing Section §2254 

cases. While the Magistrate does not agree with Respondent, the 

Petition should be denied for other reasons. Each ground will be 

discussed in order. 

Ground One 

As Ground One, 

allowed to present 

Zeigler argues at resentencing he was not 

evidence of innocence or mitigating 

circumstances, thus denying him due process. 

As primary authority for his argument, Petitioner points to 

Chaney v. Brown, 730 F.2d 1334 (10th Cir. 1984), which recognizes 

that a sentencing proceeding must permit the Defendant to 

present evidence of mitigating circumstances for a crime where 

the penalty may be death. Chaney, at 1351, 1358. Zeigler, 

however, was not facing the possibility of a death sentence. As 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 7 
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized in Cartwright v. 

Maryland, 822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir. 1987), affirmed, 108 s.ct. 

1853 ( 1988) , 

Death is qualitatively different form other punishments 

that can be imposed by the state. This difference 

necessitates ~eightened scrutiny to assure that the 

capital sentencing decision does not violate the Eight 

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual 

punishments. 

Cartwright, at 1483. The United States Cons ti tut ion does not 

require similar procedures in non-capital cases, nor does the 

State of Oklahoma grant such a right to present evidence in 

mitigation. 

To the extent Petitioner complains that he was not permitted 

to present evidence of actual innocence1 to the resentencing 

jury, Petitioner's rights have not been violated. Petitioner had 

only attacked the validity of his sentence in the initial habeas 

request, not the correctness of his finding of guilt. Thus, he 

was "returned" to the state court with the question of his guilt 

settled. Unlike a resentencing proceeding, Oklahoma's PostConviction Procedure Act is perfectly suited for considering the 

correctness of guilt findings where Defendant has discovered new 

1 Zeigler describes his new evidence as: 

(1) a fabricated latent fingerprint, taken from police 

files and planted at the crime scene; 

(2) a composite picture of a suspect, virtually identical 

in appearance to Zeigler, wanted for committing similar 

crimes in the same area after Zeigler's arrest; 

( 3) a large lawsuit by the victims against the apartment 

complex which had previously employed Zeigler, and 

predicated on Zeigler's conviction. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 8 
... ) 

·' 

evidence. See, 22 o.s. §1080, et. seq. ("Any person who has 

been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime and who claims: 

(d) that there exists evidence of material facts, not previously 

presented and heard that requires vacation of the conviction or 

sentence in the interest of justice may institute a 

proceeding under this act in the court in which the judgment and 

sentence on conviction was imposed to secure the appropriate 

relief"). On this record, however, Petitioner apparently has not 

yet attached the underlying conviction with his newly discovered 

evidence in the state courts. 

The first ground is thus without merit. 

Ground Two 

As his Second Ground for relief, Petitioner argues that 

evidence was suppressed that proved his innocence. The United 

States Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 

(1963) that suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due 

process when: (1) evidence favorable to the defense exists; (2) 

the evidence is material, and (3) the prosecution suppresses the 

evidence after a request by the defense. 

Here, Petitioner has not shown that a Brady request was 

ever made. Thus, as Petitioner never made formal request for 

production of exculpatory evidence, this ground is also without 

merit. 

Ground Three 

As his Third Ground for relief, Petitioner alleges (a) "the 

entire Oklahoma enhanced punishment scheme was invalid" and (b) 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 9 
... J I 

he "received lengthier sentences because he successfully attacked 

his conviction in violation of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 

711 (1969)". 

Contrary to Petitioner's assertions, in striking down 21 

o.s. Supp. 1976, §~l(B) as unconstitutional, the Oklahoma Court 

of Criminal Appeals explicitly left in effect the enhancement 

provision used in petitioner's conviction, that is 21 O.S. 

§51(A). The court held, "our holding today in no way impairs the 

validity of 21 o.s. Supp. 1976, §51(A)". 

P.2d 467, 471 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). 

Three holds no merit. 

Thigpen v. State, 571 

This aspect of Ground 

As to the North Carolina v. Pearce argument, Petitioner 

contends that "it is unconstitutional to allow the very fact that 

a person appealled {sic) expose that person to the potential of 

greater punishment on retrial". Pearce did not go so far as 

this. Quite the opposite, the Court in Pearce said, 

We hold, therefore, that neither the double jeopardy 

provision nor the Equal Protection Clause imposes an 

absolute bar to a more severe sentence upon 

reconviction. 

Pearce, 395 U.S. at 723. What the court did hold was that a 

sentencing judge cannot follow an announced practice of imposing 

a heavier sentence upon reconviction for the explicit purpose of 

punishing the defendant for having succeeded in getting his 

original conviction set aside. Pearce, 395 U.S. at 723-24. 

There is no evidence in this case that the jury in Petitioner's 

resentencing was vindictively punishing Zeigler for his success 

in having the prior sentence set aside, even if Pearce could be 

5 

\ 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 10 
) 

stretched this far. 

Ground Three is also without merit. 

Ground Four 

As Ground Four of his habeas Petition, Zeigler (again) 

argues trial court error in not granting a full retrial of 

Zeigler's guilt. As discussed under Grounds One and Two, above, 

this Ground does not entitle Petitioner to habeas relief. 

Ground Five 

As Ground Five Petitioner advances the proposition that the 

resentencing should be voided because Oklahoma law does not 

statutorily provide for a resentencing in other than a death 

penalty case. 

This Court earlier held that there is nothing in the Equal 

Protection Clause which would prohibit a resentencing by a new 

jury in Zeigler's case, and that a resentencing would be 

consistent with Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 (1980). Zeigler 

v. Brown, No. 83-C-248-C, Order filed January 5, 1984. In 

reviewing Zeigler's appeal from the resentencing, Oklahoma's 

Court of Criminal Appeals found that the resentencing procedure 

was not clearly erroneous under state law. Zeigler v. State, No. 

F-84-667 (December 23, 1988). Thus, there is no basis for this 

Court to reconsider its earlier determination. 

Ground Five is without merit. 

Ground Six 

In Ground Six of his Petition, Zeigler again argues that 

opening his case to resentencing, rather than simply reducing his 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 11 
,. 

sentences to their statutory minimums, violated the Equal 

Protection Clause. This was the same argument this Court held to 

be without substance (Order filed January 5, 1984, at p. 11). As 

discussed above, there is simply no change in law sufficient to 

warrant reconsideration. 

Ground Six is also groundless. 

Ground Seven 

As his Seventh and last ground, Petitioner asserts that the 

re sentencing procedure subjected him to double jeopardy. This 

argument is actually a different twist on the prior argument that 

resentencing was inappropriate. He urges that since "21 O.S. §14 

prevents a second prosecution unless a new trial is ordered under 

22 o.s. §951" then his resentencing must have been "in fact a 

reprosecution". In support, Zeigler relies on North Carolina v. 

Pearce, which, as discussed under Ground Three above, is 

inapposite to Zeigler's case. 

Ground Seven is thus also without merit. 

CONCLUSION 

None of the grounds raised in Zeigler's Petition for federal 

habeas relief describe a denial of federal constitution of rights 

for which the writ should issue. Therefore, it is the 

recommendation of the Magistrate that the Petition be denied. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 32 (D), parties are given ten (10) 

days from the above filing date to file any objections with 

supporting brief. 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 12 
I / 

Dated this :r;j: day of --~-----,!-------' 1989. 

S, 

S. WOLFE 

ST TES MAGISTRATE 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-5024 Document: 010110041928 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 13