Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02011/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02011-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BOBBY RAINEY, -) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

Uoited States U>lltt of Appeals 

Tenth CirOJit 

JUL 2 3 1991 · 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 91-2011 

) 

DARELD L. KERBY, Warden; ATTORNEY ) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV 90-987-JP) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on petitioner Bobby Rainey's 

motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs 

or fees and application for a certificate of probable cause. 

Petitioner seeks to appeal the denial of his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2254. 

Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed a prior S 2254 petition 

challenging his convictions on four grounds. His appeal of the 

district court's denial of that petition was affirmed by this 

court in an unpublished order and judgment. See Rainey v. Kerby. 

* 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: 91-2011 Document: 010110129382 Date Filed: 07/23/1991 Page: 1 
No. 90-2159 (10th Cir. Feb. 26, 1991). The instant petition 

presents a claim not dealt with in the first, that petitioner was 

subjected to multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. He argues that his state 

conviction for criminal sexual penetration, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary, which stemmed from his entering the residence 

of Tatsue Montoya and raping her, constituted three punishments 

for the same crime as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. See 

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). 

The district court dismissed the petition on the magistrate 

judge's recommendation pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Proceedings. On appeal respondents urge that this 

dismissal was correct, arguing that the issue was not raised in 

the earlier petition and that there was no double jeopardy violation under New Mexico case law. 

We first note that the Supreme Court has recently ruled in 

Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 s. Ct. 1454, 1471 (1991), that the 

Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977), standard of cause and 

prejudice should be applied when a second or subsequent federal 

habeas petition is filed raising an issue not raised in an earlier 

petition. Petitioner demonstrates no cause as to why the earlier 

petition did not raise the issue asserted for relief here. He 

recites only that neither he nor his previous writ writer knew of 

or understood this point of law and that he had no counsel. IR. 

tab 2 at 6. Such a contention does not establish cause for the 

omission. See Coleman v. Thompson, 59 U.S.L.W. 4789, 4797-98 

(U.S. June 24, 1991) (habeas petitioner has no constitutional 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2011 Document: 010110129382 Date Filed: 07/23/1991 Page: 2 
... 

> 

right to counsel; thus, petitioner bears risk of even attorney 

errors in habeas proceedings). Therefore, we must dismiss. 

Petitioner can make no rational argument on the law or facts 

in support of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 u.s.c. 

S 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); 

Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 59-60 (10th Cir. 1962). We also 

conclude that appellant 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, 892-94 (1983). 

Therefore, petitioner's motion for leave to proceed on appeal 

without prepayment of costs or fees is denied; his application for 

a certificate of probable cause is denied. The appeal is 

dismissed. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-2011 Document: 010110129382 Date Filed: 07/23/1991 Page: 3