Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06252/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06252-0/pdf.json

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

---

. FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Umred States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit - FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JERRY DALE GLEGHORN, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v . ) 

) 

JACK COWLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) 

State of Oklahoma, ROBERT HENRY, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6252 

(D.C. No. 89-252-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, JONES,** and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation . 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assi st the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner appeals from the denial of his 28 u.s.c. § 2254 

petition challenging an Oklahoma conviction for uttering a forged 

* 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: 89-6252 Document: 01019967106 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 1 
instrument after former conviction qf two or more felonies. As a 

preliminary matter, petitioner seeks a certificate of probable 

cause and leave to pursue this appeal in forma pauperis,· both 

denied below. Since petitioner arguably has made a "substantial 

showing of the denial of a federal right," in that the issues 

raised herein, though not necessarily successful, are fairly 

debatable, see Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 and n.4 

(1983), we conclude petitioner is entitled to a certificate of 

probable cause and, a fortiori, leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Id. at 893; see also Coppedge v. United States, 369 

U. S. 438, 4~7 (1962). We therefore turn to the merits of this 

appeal, which have already been fully briefed by the parties. See 

Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 (when certificate of probable cause is 

issued by court of appeals, petitioner must be afforded 

opportunity to address the merits, which court of appeals is 

obligated to decide). 

The petition asserted three general grounds for relief: 

(1) Insufficient evidence to support conviction; 

(2) Improper admission of a "Regiscope" dual-image 

photograph and attendant identification testimony linking 

petitioner to the forged instrument; and 

(3) Ineffective assistance of trial counsel, particularly 

counsel's failure to 

(a) challenge the charging information, 

(b) assert petitioner's speedy trial rights, and 

(c) exercise reasonable diligence to secure trial 

attendance of two alibi witnesses. 

The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary 

hearing, ruling that the existing record provided a sufficient 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6252 Document: 01019967106 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 2 
basis for its disposition. On this ~ppeal, petitioner challenges 

that ruling and reasserts the latter two grounds included in the 

petition. The district court's rejection of petitioner's first 

ground for relief, based upon its conclusion that a rational 

factfinder could have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt on the evidence adduced at his criminal trial, is not 

included among the issues designated for appellate review. 

Petitioner's only reference to the matter on appeal consists of 

the conclusory assertion in his statement of facts that "the 

conviction was obtained when there was insufficient evidence 

presented at trial to support it," Appellant's Opening Brief at 3, 

which fails to identify a single, specific respect in which the 

prosecution's case was deficient. The district court's considered 

ruling will not be disturbed on the basis of such an insubstantial 

objection . 

With regard to the issues properly raised on appeal, 

petitioner has failed to convince this court of the presence of 

any reversible error . We concur in the disposition reached by the 

district court for substantially the reasons stated in its 

memorandum opinion. 

Petitioner's application for a certificate of probable cause 

and request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED, 

and the judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6252 Document: 01019967106 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 3