Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06313/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06313-0/pdf.json

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

---

. F I L~j>Appeal! 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAJJJli'tm S~ Ctf'C\lit 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 19 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ALVIN PARKER, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

RON CHAMPION and the ATI'ORNEY) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ) 

OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

Nos. 92-6313 and 92-6325 

(W.D. Okla., No. CIV-92-947-T) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

This is a prose appeal from the district court's denial of 

1 the petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. In 1986, the petitioner 

was convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County of first 

degree murder. He appealed this conviction to the Oklahoma Court 

of Criminal Appeals on several grounds, including insufficiency of 

* 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 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

1 We grant petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on 

this appeal. 

Appellate Case: 92-6313 Document: 010110175792 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 1 
the evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case for 

a new trial without reaching the petitioner's sufficiency of the 

evidence claim. 

Contending that the Court of Criminal Appeal's failure to 

determine the sufficiency of the evidence violated the Double 

Jeopardy clause, the petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in 

the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma seeking to enjoin his reprosecution. The district court 

dismissed the petitioner's writ and we affirmed. See Parker v. 

Parsons, Nos. 89-6329 and 90-6068 (10th Cir. June 7, 1990) . The 

petitioner subsequently filed a writ of coram nobis to vacate the 

district court's judgment. The district court once again 

dismissed the petitioner's writ and declined to extend the time 

for the petitioner to file a notice of appeal. We affirmed this 

denial of the petitioner's motion to extend. See Parker v. 

Kaiser, No. 91-6256 (10th Cir. Jan 30, 1992). 

The petitioner was retried in the District Court of Oklahoma 

County and convicted of second degree murder. Following his 

conviction, he filed a second appeal with the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. At the same time, he commenced this current habeas 

action in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma, alleging that his subsequent conviction 

violated his right not to be twice placed in jeopardy. The 

district court dismissed his petition on the ground that he had 

not exhausted his state remedies and declined to grant the 

petitioner a certificate of probable cause. The district court 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-6313 Document: 010110175792 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 2 
also rejected the petitioner's request for release on bail pending 

appeal of his habeas petition. 

The petitioner is now appealing to this court the district 

court's denial of both his request for a certificate of probable 

cause and his request for release on bail. Because we agree with 

the district court's conclusion that the petitioner has failed to 

exhaust his state remedies, we also decline to grant the 

petitioner's request for a certificate of probable cause . Since 

this conclusion requires dismissal of the petitioner's appeal, we 

also deny the petitioner's request to be released on bail pending 

appeal. 

Title 28, United States Code, §2253 requires a petitioner to 

obtain a certificate of probable cause before appealing a final 

order in a habeas corpus proceeding under §2254. Section 2253 

provides that a certificate of probable cause may be issued either 

by the district court or the court of appeals. To receive a 

certificate of probable cause, a petitioner must "make a 

'substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right.'" 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S . 880, 893 (1983) (quoting Stewart v. 

Beto, 454 F.2d 268, 270 n.2 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 

U.S. 925 (1972)). A petitioner may satisfy this requirement by 

demonstrating that the denial of such a right is "debatable among 

jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a 

different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further. " Id. at 893 n.4 (quoting Gordon 

v. Willis, 516 F. Supp. 911, 913 (N.D. Ga. 1980)) (emphasis in 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-6313 Document: 010110175792 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 3 
original). In this case, we find that the petitioner's suit fails 

to satisfy this standard. 

A defendant challenging a state court judgment is not 

entitled to a writ of habeas corpus unless he has "exhausted the 

remedies available in the courts of the State." 28 U.S.C. 

§2254(b). An applicant has failed to exhaust his state remedies 

if "he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any 

available procedure, the question presented." Id. §2254(c). The 

purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to prevent disruption of 

state judicial proceedings and to protect the state courts' role 

in enforcing the rights of state prisoners by affording state 

courts a full opportunity to correct any alleged constitutional 

violations. See Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2554 - 55 

(1991); Miranda v. Cooper, 967 F . 2d 392, 398-99 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 113 S . Ct. 347 (1992) . 

Here, the petitioner has clearly failed to exhaust his state 

remedies. The petitioner's appeal from his present conviction is 

still pending in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Consequently, the 

Oklahoma state courts have not yet had a full opportunity to 

address the petitioner's claim that his reprosecution and 

conviction constituted double jeopardy. In light of this fact, we 

conclude that the petitioner's request for habeas relief is 

without merit. Accordingly, we deny his request for a certificate 

of probable cause and dismiss his appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 92-6313 Document: 010110175792 Date Filed: 02/19/1993 Page: 4