Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02258/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02258-0/pdf.json

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

---

r FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~oited States Court of Appeals 

JOHN JOSEPH PINSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DARELD KERBY, 

Respondent. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

TF.:nth Ci1:Tuit 

J!JN 2 ° 1991 

XOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2258 

(D.C. No. 90-510-JP) 

(D. New Mexico) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on petitioner John Joseph 

Pinson's application for a certificate of probable cause. 

Petitioner filed for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. S 2254 against the warden of the state penitentiary in 

which he is incarcerated. Petitioner was convicted in state court 

pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to receive stolen 

property and was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment on that 

conviction. See N.M. Stat. Ann. S 31-18-15. He was also given a 

mandatory four year habitual criminal enhancement to be served 

consecutively to the other sentence. See id. S 31-18-17(C). The 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2258 Document: 010110128199 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 1 
court ordered petitioner to be placed on parole for one year after 

his ultimate release from prison. Petitioner alleges that the 

state court exceeded its statutory authority, and in the process 

denied him due process as required by the federal constitution, 

when it failed to direct that the parole term be served concurrently with the habitual criminal enhancement term, and when it 

did not determine that N.M. Stat. Ann.§ 31-18-15(C), providing 

for the parole term, is unconstitutionally vague. 

We reject both assertions, as did the district court. First, 

the interpretation of a state criminal statute dealing with 

whether a parole term should be served concurrently with or 

consecutively to an enhancement required by state law is a state 

question on which the state courts have the final decision. The 

state courts' interpretation of state law raises no federal 

constitutional issue. See,~, Mora v. Patterson, 370 F.2d 923 

(10th Cir. 1967). N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-18-15(C) explicitly 

provides that the mandatory parole term "shall be deemed part of 

the sentence," to be served after completion of the prison term. 

See Gillespie v. State, 107 N.M. 455, 760 P.2d 147, 148 (1988). 

New Mexico cases hold that the habitual criminal enhancement is 

merely an alteration of the basic sentence and a part thereof. 

State v. Reaves, 99 N.M. 73, 653 P.2d 904, 905-06 (Ct. App. 1982); 

State v. Mayberry. 97 N.M. 760, 643 P.2d 629 (Ct. App. 1982). 

Petitioner also misperceives the application of the rule of 

vagueness in federal constitutional law. The vagueness of which 

he complains is simply whether the parole term is to be served 

consecutively to or concurrently with the enhanced penalty based 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2258 Document: 010110128199 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 2 
' . on petitioner's status as an habitual offender. The 

unconstitutional vagueness doctrine centers around the criminality 

of conduct, whether a person can predict that his behavior will 

constitute a crime, not the appropriate sentence. See Chapman v. 

United States, 59 u.s.L.W. 4530, 4534 (U.S. May 30, 1991). The 

interpretation of the state statutes with respect to concurrency 

versus consecutive service of sentences does not implicate that 

doctrine. 

We conclude that petitioner has failed to make a substantial 

showing of the denial of a federal right necessary for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause under 28 u.s.c. S 2253. 

See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Petitioner's application for a certificate of probable cause is denied. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2258 Document: 010110128199 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 3