Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06188/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06188-0/pdf.json

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

---

JOSE 

v. 

JACK 

FILED 

United States Coμrt <?f Appeal~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth C1rcu1t 

DANIEL ESQUIVEL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

COWLEY, 

Respondent-Appellee . 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 14 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-6188 

{D . C. No . CIV-91-1814-A) 

{W. Dist. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON 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 this appeal . See Fed . R. App. P . 

34{a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9 . The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Jose Daniel Esquivel appeals the district court's dismissal 

of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 u.s. c. § 2254 (1988) . 

Mr. Esquivel asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel 

on his first state court appeal and has thus demonstrated cause 

for his failure t o raise certain issues on that appeal. The 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, e xcept 

f or purposes o f establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 3 6 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6188 Document: 010110200942 Date Filed: 04/14/1993 Page: 1 
magistrate judge concluded that Mr. Esquivel "has not raised 

ineffective assistance of counsel as a substantive ground for 

relief either in his direct appeal or in post-conviction 

proceedings." Rec., doc. 10 at 6. The district court adopted the 

findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissed 

the petition without prejudice in order to allow Mr. Esquivel to 

exhaust his state remedies as to the ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim. 

Our review of the record discloses that Mr. Esquivel did in 

fact raise the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state 

court. In his Traverse to Response to Application for PostConviction Relief, for example, Mr. Esquivel stated that the 

"application for Post-Conviction Relief raises question [sic] 

. which were not raised at trial court or direct appeal because 

trial attorney and appeal attorney failed and or refused to bring 

forth his proposition." Rec., doc. 7, ex. D at 4 (citing 

Kirnrnelman v. Morrison, 477 U. S. 365 (1986); Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 

(1985 ) ). Moreover, in his Petition-in-Error to the Oklahoma Court 

o f Criminal Appeals, Mr. Esquivel argued that the order denying 

post-conviction relief constituted "a denial of both due process 

and equal protection o f the law, all as specifically enunciated in 

St rickland v . Washington, Kirnrnelman v. Morrison, and Evitts v. 

Lucey. 11 Rec., doc. 7, ex. Eat 6 (citations omitted) . 

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied post-conviction 

relief, stating "all issues previously ruled upon by this Court 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6188 Document: 010110200942 Date Filed: 04/14/1993 Page: 2 
are res judicata, and all issues not raised in the direct appeal, 

which could have been raised, are waived . Moreover, Appellant has 

failed to provide this Court with sufficient reasons concerning 

why these grounds for relief were not asserted or were 

insufficiently raised in prior proceedings." Rec . , doc. 7, ex. C 

at 1. 

Under our duty to construe Mr. Esquivel's prose pleadings 

liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), we hold that Mr. 

Esquivel adequately raised in the state proceedings his federal 

constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. 

Esquivel cited the leading Supreme Court cases which establish and 

explain this claim. These citations, in conjunction with the 

statements of Mr. Esquivel that he was denied due process and that 

his counsel failed to raise certain issues, satisfy the 

requirement that the federal claim be "fairly presented" to the 

state court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 (1971); Nichols 

v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 1250, 1252 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 

U.S. 1112 (1989 ) . Mr. Esquivel has exhausted all available state 

remedies with respect to his ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim. Therefore, we grant the certificate of probable cause, 

reverse the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus 

petition, and remand for further proceedings. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith . 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6188 Document: 010110200942 Date Filed: 04/14/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-6188 Document: 010110200942 Date Filed: 04/14/1993 Page: 4