Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06031/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06031-0/pdf.json

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

---

,-

FI LED 

Uflited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 8 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LEON STRANGE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES SAFFEL; ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

State of Oklahoma, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 90-6402 

91-6031 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1425-W) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, 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(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Leon Strange appeals from a denial of his fifth petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus (no. 90-6402), and from a subsequent order 

of the district court denying his motion for a rehearing (no. 

91-6031). In his petition he alleged that his conviction and 

sentence in state court were obtained in violation of the Fifth, 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6031 Document: 010110131459 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 1 
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, setting forth three grounds. He also alleged substantive 

change in intervening state law, and invoked interests of justice 

and fundamental fairness. The district court dismissed the petition on the ground that it constituted an abuse of the writ. On 

appeal Strange reargues his petition before the district court, 

and contends that the district court erred both factually and 

legally in its analysis, and failed to address the due process 

issue. 

Petitioner's contentions are fairly outlined in the 

memorandum opinion of the district court filed November 30, 1990, 

a copy of which is attached hereto. We have carefully considered 

all of the arguments made by Mr. Strange in the district court and 

on appeal. We have also reviewed the file with respect to 

Strange's prior habeas petitions. Essentially for the reasons 

stated in the district court's memorandum opinion, a copy of which 

is attached hereto, we conclude that the district court did not 

err in its conclusion that Strange has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his current petition is not an abuse of 

the writ. 

Because we find petitioner has not demonstrated the issues 

raised are debatable among jurists, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 

880 (1983), we DENY his applications for a certificate of probable 

cause in both appeals. Petitioner has filed additional motions in 

these cases. They are all DENIED. Both appeals are DISMISSED. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6031 Document: 010110131459 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 2 
The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6031 Document: 010110131459 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 3 
.-. AUG 07 ' 91 15=21 ANDERSON SLC *2 TENTH CIRCU IT P.2/ 6 

( ( . 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Foif~ik L E :) WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

LEON STRANGE, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

JAMES SAFFLE and the ATTORNEY) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ) 

OKLAHOMA , ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

CIV-90-1425-W 

DOCKETED 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing 12X.Q ~ and in forma 

payperis, has filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. §2254. The Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 9 (b), Rules Governing Sectiori 2254 Cases, 28 

u.s.c., asserting an abuse of the writ, and the Petitioner has 

responded thereto. Thus, the motion is at issue. 

In this proceeding, the Petitioner challenges his convictions 

in Case Nos. 34,295 and CRF-69-115 in the District Court of 

Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, wherein the Petitioner pled guilty to 

one count of first degree murder and one count of attempted armed 

robbery, and rec eived a life sentence and 99-year sentence, 

respectively. The Petitioner contends that he was sent to a state 

mental hospital for purposes of evaluating his mental competency, 

but upon his return to the Court, he was not given a postexamination competency hearing, "made mandatory by state statutes. 11 

Appellate Case: 91-6031 Document: 010110131459 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 4 
,., . AUG 07 '9i 15: 22 ANI1ERSON SLC #2 TENTH CIRCUIT 

( ( . 

The Respondent contends that the petition should be dismissed as 

an abusive petition, as Petitioner has filed four previous habeas 

corpus petitions with this Court, the most recent being Case No . 

CIV-87-1942-W, Strange v. Saffle, (W.O. Okla., October 26, 1987), 

wherein this Court ruled that the petition constituted an abuse of 

t he writ. In response to the motion to dismiss, the Petitioner 

claims that he could not have asserted this claim earlier because 

the Oklahoma statutes did not require the post-examination 

competency hearing until 1985, and his access to legal materi.als 

has been limited since 1985 to requesting copies of items from the 

law library. Thus, he c l aims he was unaware of the change in the 

law until recently. 

A federal court may dismiss a subsequent or successive 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus if "it fails to allege new or 

different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the 

merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge 

finds that the failure of the petitioner to assert those grounds 

in a prior petition constituted an abuse of the writ." Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases, 9(b), 28 u.s.c. This rule is 

repeated in slightly different words in 28 u.s.c. §2244(b), which 

states that a court need not consider a petition unless it "alleges 

and is predicated on a factual or other ground not adjudicated on 

the hearb1g of the earlier application for the writ, and unless the 

court, justice, or judge is satisfied that the applicant has not 

on the earlier application deliberately withheld the newly asserted 

ground or otherwise abused the writ." Coleman y, Saffle, 869 F.2d 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6031 Document: 010110131459 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 5 
AUG 07 '91 15:23 ANDERSON SLC #2 TENTH CIRCUIT P.4/ 6 

(_ ( 

1377, 1380 (10th cir. 1989). The Tenth Circuit has held that 

"courts should dismiss subsequent petitions when the petitioner has 

offered no reasonable explanation why he did not raise his claim 

in the earlier appl ication." The Court specifically held that a 

petitioner must "show that he or his counsel in the earlier 

petition did not intentionally abandon or inexcusably neglect the 

new claim," and "that he did not deliberately withhold the claim 

or at least has a good reason for not purposely raising it. 0 lg,. 

The standard of review is that a petitioner must show "by a 

preponderance of the evidencen that he did not know of the specific 

legal or factual grounds for the claim when he filed his earlier 

petition, or that the law has changed since the earlier petition • 

.I.<;i. The Court stressed that the Petitioner "ultimately bears the 

burden of persuasion, and th.e Supreme Court plainly has instructed 

federal courts to dismiss petitions, even in capital cases, when 

petitioners fail to prove that they have not abused the writ." 

Ig. (citation omitted). 

Although the Petitioner attempts to indicate that he has been 

unable to obtain physical access to a library since 1985, this did 

not prevent his access to legal materials nor did it prohibit him 

from filing his previous petition in 1987, which was denied by this 

Court as abusive. Thus, the court finds th.at the Petitioner has 

not met his burden of persuasion by a "preponderance of the 

evidence" t hat he has good reason for failing to raise his current 

claim in the earlier federal habeas petition. Thus, the petition 

constitutes an abuse of the writ. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6031 Document: 010110131459 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 6 
AUG 07 ' 91 15:24 ANDERSON SLC #2 TENTH CIRCUIT P.5/ 6 

( (_ 

In any event, the Petitioner challenges~ a state statute, 

without indicating that he was denied any right approaching 

constitutional dimension. In Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984), 

the Supreme Court reiterated that unless a constitutional violation 

occurs at trial, the claim in governed by state law and is not 

cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. .I,g. at 41. The 

Petitioner does not otherwise challenge the voluntariness of his 

plea, but merely states that he was not afforded a post-examination 

hearing as is now provided by Okla. Stat. Tit. 22 §1175.4. 

However, as the Respondents indicate, the statute was adopted in 

1985 and the Petitioner was convicted in 1969. An examination of 

the relevant statutes effective in 1969, Okla. Stat. tit. 22 §1162, 

tt ll,g., reveals that the Petitioner was not entitled to a postexamination hearing, if the examining doctors found him to be 

presently sane, and Petitioner does not allege that he was found 

to be insane. Thus, under the Oklahoma statutes then in effect, 

the suspended criminal proceedings were allowed to proceed. The 

Court is aware of no retroactive requirements as a result of the 

198 5 statute, and thus the Petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

any event. 

The Petitioner's assertion of Pate v, Robinson, 383 u.s. 375, 

385 (1966) is inappropriate, as that case only required a 

competency hearing when there is a "bona fide doubt" as to an 

accused's mental competence to stand trial, rather than in every 

case as the Petiti oner claims. Sil A.1.§.Q, Arnold v. U.S., 432 F.2d 

871, 873 (10th Cir. 1970); U,5 1 y, Newman. 733 F.2d 1395, 1400 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6031 Document: 010110131459 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 7 
~=--~~~~~~----=--==--==-==-==--==-==-===-==-----

AUG 07 '91 15:25 ANDERSON SLC #2 TENTH CIRCUIT 

\_ ( 

P.6/ 6 

(10th Cir. 1984 ). As~ was a 1966 case, this.issue clearly was 

not "interveningn and c ould have been raised in one of the four 

prior proceedi ngs. 

In accordance with the above, the Petition is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this ?)QU day of "-i'~ 1990. 

~ _. ~ . 

R.WEST 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6031 Document: 010110131459 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 8