Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05131/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05131-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL I~ i) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL@°nit.ed States Court of Appealr 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DENNIS S. FUNKHOUSER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

V. 

JAMES L. SAFFLE; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEBO 3 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER Clerk . 

No. 92-5131 

(D.C. No. 90-C-1046-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Dennis Stephen Funkhouser, a prisoner in the 

Joseph Harp Correctional Center in Oklahoma, appeals the denial of 

his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. He was convicted by a jury of felony murder and first 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall n ot 

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

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

res judicata , or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-5131 Document: 010110165555 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 1 
degree burglary, and received consecutive sentences. On appeal to 

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, petitioner's first degree 

burglary conviction was ordered set aside on the basis that the 

underlying burglary merged into the proof required for felony murder. The first degree murder conviction and sentence were 

affirmed. Funkhouser v. State, No . F-85-70 (Okla. Cr. App. 1989 ) 

(unpublished) . 

Petitioner then sought habeas corpus relief in federal court 

making five contentions: (1) he was denied due process because 

his competency hearing followed his conviction, (2) he was tried 

and convicted of two crimes arising from a single transaction, 

thereby exposing him to double jeopardy, (3) the record contains 

insufficient evidence to convict him as charged, (4) cumulative 

prosecutorial errors require reversal, and (5) the state court 

erred in admitting evidence petitioner committed another crime. 

All of these issues were raised in his state appeal following his 

conviction. The district court denied relief. 

Because only federal constitutional errors can be the basis 

for federal habeas relief from a state conviction, we can consider 

only federal constitutional issues on appeal. 

In his briefs on appeal petitioner focuses only on the fact 

that he was convicted of two crimes arising out of the same facts, 

murder and burglary. Even though the burglary conviction was set 

aside by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, petitioner 

asserts his conviction for murder must fall on double jeopardy 

grounds. Petitioner argues that because the indictment listed 

burglary as count one and felony murder as count two, he was first 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5131 Document: 010110165555 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 2 
convicted of burglary, and, therefore, it violated double jeopardy 

to convict him of felony murder, even though the judgment on both 

counts was rendered in the same trial. We reject this argument. 

It was entirely proper to dismiss the burglary conviction 

because it was the underlying felony supporting the felony murder 

charge, and hence a lesser included crime . Brown v. Ohio, 432 

U.S. 161, 165 (1977); Percy v. State, 764 P.2d 892, 898 (1988). 

But the sequence of the charges in a single indictment is of no 

consequence. See United States v. Combs, 634 F.2d 1295, 1298 

(10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913 (1981 ) . We agree 

with the district court that the double jeopardy issue is no 

longer viable. 

We cannot determine whether petitioner intended to preserve 

for appeal the other issues raised in the district court by his 

reference in his appellate brief to the federal and state courts 

"improperly determin[ing] that the Appellants conviction was 

proper under the harmless error standard of review based upon 

statutory guidelines." Appellant's Brief at 2. Because any 

second petition raising these issues would be subject to dismissal 

as successive or on other grounds, we treat these issues as properly before us. After reviewing the extensive record, we affirm 

the district court on all other issues raised in the district 

court for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate 

judge's Report and Recommendation of August 23, 1991. We independently reviewed the transcript of the trial as required by Jackson 

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). We agree that the record 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-5131 Document: 010110165555 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 3 
contains ample evidence for a rational trier of fact to find petitioner was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4 -

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-5131 Document: 010110165555 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 4