Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05003/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05003-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoited States Court of Ap~als 

Tenth <::irruir. 

APR 2 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JIMMY LEE TRUNDLE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; ATTORNEY ) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

No. 89-5003 

(D.C. No. 88-C-231-C) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON, and TACHA, 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. 

The prose petitioner was charged in state court with a 

second offense of driving under the influence of alcohol which 

under Oklahoma law was a felony. He pled guilty and was sentenced 

to eighteen months imprisonment. The record is unclear whether 

* 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: 89-5003 Document: 01019971970 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 1 
the trial court intended his sentence to run consecutively or concurrently with the five-year sentences he was already serving. 

The record is clear that an Oklahoma judge has no authority to 

make a sentence run concurrently with a sentence already being 

served. Handley v. Page, 398 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1968), 

cert. denied, 394 U.S. 935 (1969). There is also some dispute in 

the record as to whether petitioner was informed by his counsel 

before pleading guilty that his sentence would run concurrently. 

It is clear that petitioner was informed that he could receive at 

least an eighteen month prison term if he pled guilty. After 

exhausting his challenges to the eighteen-month consecutive sentence in state court, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the federal district court. That court denied his petition. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, petitioner raises these challenges: (1) that his 

plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntarily entered; (2) that 

the trial court's pronouncement of sentence did in fact impose a 

concurrent sentence; and (3) that his sentence violates principles 

of double jeopardy under the federal Constitution. 

The only issue of constitutional significance in this appeal 

is whether petitioner's plea of guilty was knowingly and voluntarily entered into. The only basis for challenge to the voluntariness is his claim that he was not informed that the sentence would 

run concurrently with sentences already being served. The federal 

courts are in agreement that trial judges are not required to specifically inform defendants that possible sentences may run consecutively. Trial judges are merely required to inform defendants 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5003 Document: 01019971970 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 2 
of the possible sentences available for each crime charged. 

Barbee v. Ruth, 678 F.2d 634, 635 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 

U.S. 867 (1982); United States v. Hamilton, 568 F.2d 1302, 1304-06 

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 944 (1978); United States ex 

rel. Montgomery v. Illinois, 473 F.2d 1382, 1383 (7th Cir. 1973); 

Johnson v. United States, 460 F.2d 1203 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 

409 U.S. 873 (1972); United States v. Theodorou, 576 F. Supp. 

1007, 1011 (N.D. Ill. 1983). 

Petitioner was informed that he could receive a sentence of 

up to eighteen months. The fact that he was not informed that it 

would run consecutively to other sentences does not undermine the 

otherwise voluntary nature of his plea of guilty. 

We have no authority to require the state court to make his 

sentence concurrent rather than consecutive. Handley, 398 F.2d at 

352. Because defendant's sentence under Oklahoma law automatically was required to be imposed consecutively to his prior sentences, this case does not involve resentencing and in no way 

raises any issues of double jeopardy. 

The petition for certificate of probable cause is granted; 

the order of the district court denying the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus is affirmed; the mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-5003 Document: 01019971970 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 3