Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01202/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01202-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARY JAMES GAGEN, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

SHERIFF PATRICK SULLIVAN; DUANE L. ) 

WOODARD, Attorney General, ) 

) 

No. 89-1202 

(D.C. Nos. 87-C-1148, 

88-C-117 (consolidated)) 

Respondent-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

f d . . d ** Be ore TACHA, BALDOCK an BRORBY, Circuit Ju ges. 

Petitioner-appellant Cary James Gagen (Gagen) appeals the 

district court's denial of a certificate of probable cause 

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Gagen claims that Colorado 

officials violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial and 

unconstitutionally failed to release him on bail prior to trial. 

The district court held that Gagen failed to exhaust his state 

remedies and denied his habeas petition. 

* 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. 

** After examining the briefs 

has determined unanimously that 

materially the determination of 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

and appellate record, this panel 

oral argument would not assist 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

Appellate Case: 89-1202 Document: 01019962971 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 1 
On March 4, 1986, Gagen was arrested and charged in Colorado 

state court with felony theft, criminal attempt to commit felony 

theft, and criminal impersonation and detained. On May 14 of that 

year, Gagen was served with a fugitive warrant from the State of 

California for violating the terms of his probation on a prior 

conviction. California authorities agreed not to proceed on 

Gagen's extradition until the Colorado proceedings were concluded. 

Gagen was adjudged mentally incompetent in September 1986 and 

confined to the Colorado State Hospital until January 1987 when 

the district court determined that he was competent to stand 

trial. Trial was originally set for July 27, 1987, however, due 

to the judge's recusal and several motions filed by Gagen, trial 

did not commence until January 8, 1988. On March 1, 1988, Gagen 

was found guilty of all counts and subsequently sentenced to eight 

years imprisonment. Gagen's conviction is currently on appeal in 

state court. 

Gagen first claims that, prior to trial, he was denied bail 

by Colorado authorities, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally. 

Following a criminal conviction, a defendant's constitutional 

claim to pretrial bail becomes moot. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 

478, 481 (1982). Because Gagen has already been convicted, 

resolution of his bail claim would have no effect upon his 

substantive rights. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316-17 

(1974). Accordingly, Gagen's habeas petition is moot on this 

issue. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1202 Document: 01019962971 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 2 
Gagen's also argues that the twenty-two month delay between 

his arrest and trial violated his sixth amendment right to a 

speedy trial. The practicalities of judicial administration and 

the doctrine of comity imbedded in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) require 

that speedy trial issues be determined in the first instance by 

the state court. Trigg v. Moseley, 433 F.2d 364, 366 (10th Cir. 

1970). Before raising a speedy trial claim in a federal court on 

habeas corpus, a petitioner should exhaust all state remedies; 

failure to exhaust such remedies is generally fatal to federal 

habeas review. United States v. Sielaff, 585 F.2d 288 (7th Cir. 

1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 962 (1979). 

In Colorado, denial of a defendant's right to a speedy trial 

may provide grounds for reversal of a criminal conviction on 

direct appeal. See,~, People v. Runningbear, 753 P.2d 764, 

767-68 (Colo. 1988). Before bringing his speedy trial claim under 

federal habeas corpus, Gagen must therefore allow the Colorado 

courts to consider such claim. Because Gagen's conviction is 

currently on appeal and he has not commenced any collateral 

proceedings, the district court properly held that Gagen has not 

exhausted his state remedies. Cf. Glidewell v. Burden, 822 F.2d 

1027, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (only where habeas petitioner raised 

speedy trial claims both on direct appeal and in state habeas 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1202 Document: 01019962971 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 3 
corpus the court addressed the merits of his claim), cert. denied, 

484 U.S. 1018 (1988). 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1202 Document: 01019962971 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 4