Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06157/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

UNITED 

v. 

DONNIE 

FILED 

UHITED STATES 

United States Court of Appeals 

COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 2 5 1990 

-----------«OBERTL.HOECKER 

Clerk 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) No. 90-6157 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) (D.C. No. CR-79-163-D) 

RAY DUMAS, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER ARD JUDGMEN'l'* 

Before ARDERSOR,·BALDOCK, 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 o.f this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9·. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Donnie Ray Dumas appeals the district court's denial of his 

motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2255. Dumas 

contends that the government breached "the trust and spirit" of 

their plea agreement. We affirm. 

* 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: 90-6157 Document: 010110064864 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 1 
• 

On November 13, 1979, Dumas pleaded guilty to one count of 

first degree murder in violation of 18 u.s.c. §§ 1111, 7. On 

December 27, 1979, the district court dismissed two related 

firearms counts and sentenced Dumas to life imprisonment. A 

decade later, on December 27, 1989, Dumas filed the instant motion 

to vacate. Although Dumas concedes there was no written plea 

agreement, he alleges that, in exchange for his guilty plea, a 

U.S. Attorney agreed not to use Dumas' confession and not to 

interfere with Dumas' parole hearings. Dumas contends these 

promises were breached when the prosecutor: 1) released his confession to a probation officer for inclusion in Dumas' presentence 

report, and 2) completed a Form USA-792 (Report on a Convicted 

Prisoner by United States Attorney) used in parole evaluations. 

Dumas further contends that the district court improperly declined 

to hold a hearing to consider the evidence in support of his 

motion. 

In considering a claim that a U.S. attorney has breached a 

plea agreement, we must first determine the nature of the 

prosecutor's promise. United States v. Pogue, 865 F.2d 226, 221· 

(10th Cir. 1989); United States v. Stemm, 847 F.2d 636, 637 (10th 

Cir. 1988). This determination is based upon what the defendant 

reasonably understood when he entered his plea. Pogue, 865 F.2d 

at 227; United States v. Greenwood, 812 F.2d 632, 635 (10th Cir. 

1987). In this case, the task is rendered difficult by the 

absence of any written record of a plea agreement. The district 

court, however, held a plea hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11 and elicited Dumas' understanding of his plea and any 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6157 Document: 010110064864 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 2 
underlying agreement. At the plea hearing, Dumas specifically 

denied the existence of any promise from the government other than 

its agreement to recommend that the court dismiss the firearms 

counts. 1 

This statement on the record constitutes a "formidable 

barrier" to Dumas' different account .in this collateral proceeding. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977); United States 

v. Maranzino, 860 F.2d 981, 985 (10th Cir. 1988); Worthen v. 

Meachum, 842 F.2d 1179, 1183-84 (10th Cir. 1988). Dumas correctly 

argues that his testimony at the Rule 11 plea hearing does not 

foreclose further judicial inquiry into the actual nature of the 

plea bargain. See United States v. Greenwood, 812 F.2d 632, 635 

(10th Cir. 1987); United States v. Blackner, 721 F.2d 703, 709 

(10th Cir. 1983). In fact, Dumas is "entitled to an evidentiary 

1 

THE COURT: You've heard it stated here if I accept 

your plea of guilty to Count One that the United States 

Attorney intends to file a motion with the Court 

requesting the Court to dismiss Counts Two and Three 

against you. Have you heard this? 

DEFENDANT DUMAS: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: If this should in any way be construed or 

considered as a promise for your plea of guilty to Count 

One at this time, the Court inquires of you as to 

whether or not there are any other promises of any kind 

that have been given to you by anybody to cause you to 

now plead guilty to Count One? 

DEFENDANT DUMAS: No, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Again, you plead guilty to Count One of your 

own free and voluntary will? 

DEFENDANT DUMAS: Yes, Your Honor. 

Transcript of Plea Hearing at 5-6. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6157 Document: 010110064864 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 3 
hearing unless his motion and [the] files and records of the case 

'conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief.'" United 

States v. Estrada, 849 F.2d 1304, 1306 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting 

28 u.s.c. § 2255). However, we have held that "[a] defendant's 

statements at a plea hearing should be regarded as conclusive in 

the absence of a believable, valid reason justifying a departure 

from the apparent truth of those statements." Id. (citing Hedman 

v. United States, 527 F.2d 20, 22 (10th Cir. 1975)). 

After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the 

district judge that Dumas has failed to assert a valid, believable 

reason to disregard his statements under oath. Dumas now asserts 

that his attorneys told him the plea agreement included the 

alleged additional promises by the government. But the affidavits 

of Dumas' attorneys refute this claim. In short, Dumas' current 

allegations are insufficient to trigger the hearing requirement of 

§ 2255. 

There is some evidence that Dumas might have reasonably 

understood that the government promised not to appear at any of 

his parole hearings. But there is no evidence that the government 

promised not to file a Form USA 792 or not to include Dumas' confession in his presentence investigation report. Indeed, furnishing this sort of information about a defendant is part of a 

federal prosecutor's duty. See Stemm, 847 F.2d at 639. 

Since the government did recommend that the firearms counts 

be dismissed, and Dumas does not allege that the government has 

appeared at one of his parole hearings, the government has not 

breached any of its promises established in the record. Dumas' 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6157 Document: 010110064864 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 4 
, motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the judgment of 

the district court is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6157 Document: 010110064864 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 5