Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02590/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02590-0/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 

ALVIN PARKER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United St.ates Court of Appeals Tenth r.;rc,,it 

JAN O 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 88-2590 

MICHAEL D. PARSONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ALVIN PARKER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondent. 

) (D.C. No. CIV-88-1360-T) 

) ( W. D. Okla. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-2961 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

3 4(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The causes are therefore ordered 

Appellate Case: 88-2590 Document: 01019962024 Date Filed: 01/06/1989 Page: 1 
These two matters are considered together because they share 

the same procedural history and raise essentially the same issues. 

In appeal No. 88-2590, presently before this court on application 

for a certificate of probable cause, petitioner seeks review of a 

district court order dismissing the second 28 u.s.c. § 2254 

petition he has filed since his Oklahoma conviction of first 

degree murder in April of 1986. The second matter, designated 

No. 88-2961, appears to be an attempt to invoke§ 2254(a) and 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(a), which permit -- though disfavor -- original 

consideration of habeas petitions by federal circuit court judges, 

as an alternative means by which to bring the issues raised in his 

second§ 2254 petition before this court. 

We concur in the district court's dismissal of petitioner's 

premature claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, 

which has no legally cognizable premise unless and until 

petitioner's direct criminal appeal is adversely disposed of by 

the state court as a result of counsel's alleged procedural error. 

We cannot agree, however, with the district court's dismissal of 

petitioner's remaining claim, which seeks relief for the 

continuing delay in the state court's resolution of that same 

appeal, already well into its third year. 

The state court's inordinate delay on petitioner's direct 

appeal generally excuses the exhaustion of remedies requirement 

for the issues raised therein, see,~' Way v. Crouse, 421 F.2d 

145, 146-47 (10th Cir. 1970); Jones v. Crouse, 360 F.2d 157, 158 

(10th Cir. 1966), unless, of course, respondents provide reasons 

for the delay that are unrelated to the state appeal apparatus, 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2590 Document: 01019962024 Date Filed: 01/06/1989 Page: 2 
see, ~ ... .= .... 9_.=_, Prescher v. Crouse, 431 F.2d 209, 211-12 (10th Cir. 

1970). Accordingly, on remand the district court should let 

petitioner amend his petition to include the substantive federal 

issues, if any, presently stalled in state court, but also grant 

respondents the opportunity to justify the delay incurred thus 

far. 

The application for a certificate of probable cause is 

granted, the order of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED insofar as it dismisses 

petitioner's premature ineffective assistance claim, but is 

otherwise VACATED, and the cause is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with the principles set forth herein. In 

light of this court's disposition of petitioner's appeal, the 

application to assume original jurisdiction (No. 88-2961) and all 

pending motions are denied as moot. 

The mandate in appeal No. 88-2590 shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2590 Document: 01019962024 Date Filed: 01/06/1989 Page: 3