Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08084/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08084-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ANTHONY R. HAMILL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. No. 89-8084 

( D. Wyo.} 

FE 3? fQ§O 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DUANE SHILLINGER, Warden, 

and the Attorney General of 

the State of Wyoming, 

(D.C. No. C84-340-K} 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner-appellant Anthony R. Hamill appeals from the 

district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted of three counts 

of sexual assault in Wyoming state court. He argues first that he 

was deprived of due process of law and subjected to double 

* 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: 89-8084 Document: 01019964525 Date Filed: 02/27/1990 Page: 1 
jeopardy because he was tried on four counts of sexual assault and 

convicted on three counts, all of which arose from a single 

transaction. The three counts of which petitioner was convicted 

each allege separate, discrete sexual acts. Because the proof for 

each count is different, petitioner was not subjected to double 

jeopardy. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). The 

State of Wyoming is free to define, and in fact has defined, 

distinct acts of sexual assault occurring within a single 

prolonged incident as separate offenses. See Hamill v. State, 602 

P.2d 1212, 1216 (Wyo. 1979). Therefore, petitioner's rights under 

the Double Jeopardy Clause were not violated. In addition, we 

reject petitioner's argument that the merger of two of the counts 

in the information (alleging sexual and anal intercourse) 

prejudiced his ability to prepare an effective defense and appeal 

in violation of the Due Process Clause. 

Petitioner also objects to a doctor's unsolicited statement, 

made during the course of direct examination by the prosecution, 

that the victim of the sexual attack was also the victim of a 

"physical attack and probably even attempted murder." Following 

that statement, the court offered to give a limiting instruction 

to the jury, but petitioner refused that offer. In light of the 

explicit testimony of the victim about the attack made upon her by 

petitioner, this isolated comment by the doctor did not prejudice 

petitioner to the extent of denying him a fair trial. See 

United States v. Woodring, 446 F.2d 733, 737 (10th Cir. 1971). 

Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his 

motion for a certificate of probable cause are granted. The order 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 89-8084 Document: 01019964525 Date Filed: 02/27/1990 Page: 2 
of the district court denying the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is AFFIRMED, and petitioner's motion to set bond pending 

habeas corpus relief is denied. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 89-8084 Document: 01019964525 Date Filed: 02/27/1990 Page: 3