Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03292/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03292-0/pdf.json

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

---

.-- ._ 

FILED· Uoited Stw.D.L< G.,. . • "'!'I' -OMii of 4 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'lenth Cirruit ppeaJs 

TENTH CIRCUIT AP/? le; 1 

OBERT L. HOECK£ 

Clerk R HENRY O. HICKS, JR. 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

RAYMOND ROBERTS and 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

No. 90-3292 

(D.C. No. 90-3392-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant, Henry o. Hicks, Jr., seeks a 

certificate of probable cause to appeal the district court's 

dismissal of his 28 u.s.c. § 2254 petition. He also seeks to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. On September 12, 1988, 

petitioner was convicted in the district court of Johnson County, 

Kansas, of taking indecent liberties with a child. He did not 

appeal; however, he later moved for the sentencing court to review 

* 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. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-3292 Document: 010110034169 Date Filed: 04/12/1991 Page: 1 
the conviction pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann.§ 60-1507 (1983). 

After the state court denied the motion, petitioner did not seek 

review by a higher state appellate court as provided for in Kan. 

Stat. Ann.§ 60-1507(d). Instead, he filed a§ 2254 petition in 

federal district court, pointing to the same constitutional errors 

argued before the state court. The federal court dismissed the 

petition without prejudice because petitioner failed to exhaust 

the available state remedies as required by§ 2254(b). 

Additionally, the court declined to issue a certificate of 

probable cause. 

"To fulfill the[§ 2254(b)] exhaustion requirement, a 

petitioner must present his claim to a state appellate court." 

Osborn v. Shillinger, 861 F.2d 612, 616 (10th Cir. 1988). See 

also Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (claim must be 

fairly presented to the state courts). In this instance, 

petitioner's arguments did not reach the Kansas appellate courts 

because he did not file a notice of appeal from the state's postconviction review procedure. Absent evidence that petitioner's 

claims are procedurally barred under Kansas law, see Castille v. 

Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989), we find that he has not 

exhausted the available state remedies 1 and that the district 

1 See Hudson v. Crouse, 420 F.2d 416, 419 (10th Cir. 1970) 

(held that inmate who failed to appeal Kansas district court 

denial of a Kan. Stat. Ann.§ 60-1507 petition had not exhausted 

state remedies because further redress was available at the state 

level pursuant to section 60-1507). Although the Kansas district 

court is not required to entertain successive motions for postconviction relief, Kan. Stat. Ann.§ 60-1507(c), it may do so if 

"the errors affect constitutional rights and there are exceptional 

(footnote continued to next page) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3292 Document: 010110034169 Date Filed: 04/12/1991 Page: 2 
court correctly dismissed his§ 2254 petition. In denying 

petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we 

find that he does not have a rational argument based on law or 

fact to support his appeal since he has not exhausted the 

available state remedies. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(1962). Likewise, "a 'substantial showing of the denial of [a] 

federal right'" is lacking. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 

892 (1983) (quoting Stewart v. Beto, 454 F.2d 268, 270, n.2 (5th 

Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 925 (1972)). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court's denial of certificate of probable 

cause. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

(footnote continued from previous page) 

circumstances which justify entertaining a second or successive 

motion." Dunlap v. State, 559 P.2d 788, 790 (Kan. 1977). We 

express no opinion on whether petitioner's claim presents such 

circumstances. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3292 Document: 010110034169 Date Filed: 04/12/1991 Page: 3