Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07028/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07028-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

United Stlltes Cwn of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1,,.nth Cfrreit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

VERNON RAY BROWN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STEVE HARGETT and 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

· UG 11991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-7028 

(D.C. No. 90-210-C) 

( E . D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, 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-appellant Vernon Ray Brown was convicted of second 

degree burglary after former conviction of a felony in the 

District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma. He was sentenced to 

twenty-five years' imprisonment. Brown filed a direct appeal with 

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. That court affirmed the 

judgment and sentence. 

* 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: 91-7028 Document: 010110130197 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 1 
Brown then filed an application for post-conviction relief in 

the District Court of Muskogee County, arguing he did not receive 

adequate representation in his trial. He mailed an amended 

application to the court on March 1, 1990 in which he raised three 

new allegations: (1) the trial court improperly admitted prior 

convictions without proper foundation being laid; (2) the trial 

court admitted evidence that was allegedly seized unlawfully; and 

(3) there was insufficient evidence to convict him. On March 2, 

1990, the trial court denied post-conviction relief because the 

issue of representation had already been resolved on direct 

appeal. Brown's amended application was filed with the trial 

court on March 5, 1990. 

Brown appealed the trial court's March 2 decision to the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing the trial court failed 

to consider the issues raised in his amended application. That 

court determined that even if the trial court had these issues 

properly before it, they would not sustain a motion for postjudgment relief. The court noted all three issues could have been 

raised on direct appeal. Under Oklahoma law, failure to raise 

such an issue at that time constitutes waiver. Although Brown 

claimed he had newly discovered evidence allowing him to raise 

these issues at that time, the court upheld the denial of postconviction relief. 

Brown then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

federal district court raising the same issues presented in his 

amended application for post-conviction relief. The district 

court concluded Brown was procedurally barred from raising these 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7028 Document: 010110130197 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 2 
•' 

claims because the state court's rulings rested on independent and 

adequate state grounds. Brown filed a timely notice of appeal 

with this court. 

The Supreme Court held in Wainwright~ Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 

81, 87 (1977), that an adequate and independent finding of 

procedural default by the state court will bar federal habeas 

review of the federal claim unless the petitioner can prove cause 

for the default and resulting prejudice. In extraordinary cases, 

where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the 

conviction of an innocent person, a court may grant the writ even 

in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural default. 

Murray~ Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986). 

A state court judgment is adequate and independent of the 

federal claim if the last state court rendering judgment in the 

case clearly and expressly states its decision rests on a state 

procedural bar. Coleman~ Thompson, 59 U.S.L.W. 4789, 4792-94 

(U.S. June 24, 1991). In this case, the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals determined the claims asserted in Brown's amended 

application for post-conviction relief were waived by Brown's 

failure to raise them on direct appeal. Based on our review of 

the record in this case, we conclude Brown has not satisfied the 

cause and prejudice test nor demonstrated a fundamental 

miscarriage of justice. The district court properly denied 

Brown's petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Because we find Brown has neither raised a reasoned argument 

on the law and facts, Coppedge~ United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(1962), nor demonstrated the issues raised are debatable among 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-7028 Document: 010110130197 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 3 
jurists, Barefoot Y.!.. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), we deny the 

certificate of probable cause and the motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. The appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7028 Document: 010110130197 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 4