Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03039/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03039-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APP,fiJsJ. ~Rppeall Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

M.C. MAYBERRY, JR., 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT HANNIGAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

KANSAS, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DEC 15 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3039 

(D.C . No. 91-3239-8) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before BALDOCK and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BABCOCK,** District 

Judge.*** 

**Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, District Judge, 

District Court for the District of Colorado, 

designation. 

United States 

sitting by 

Petitioner M.C . Mayberry, Jr. is presently serving two 

consecutive life sentences in Kansas on a conviction for first 

degree murder, together with a sentence for aggravated burglary. 

* 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument . 

Appellate Case: 92-3039 Document: 010110152137 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 1 
Petitioner appealed his convictions, and the Kansas Supreme Court 

affirmed. Petitioner then sought habeas corpus relief in federal 

district court; that court denied his habeas petition. Petitioner 

now appeals. Our jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

The district court denied petitioner's motion for a 

certificate of probable cause. Petitioner moved for a certificate 

of probable cause in this court; we grant probable cause 

certification and affirm. 

Petitioner raises thirteen issues for review: ten are issues 

presented to the district court in his initial habeas petition, 

and three are additional issues. We review petitioner's 

contentions of legal error de novo, Martin v. Kaiser, 907 F.2d 

931, 933 (10th Cir. 1990). The state trial court's findings of 

fact are, with certain specified exceptions, accorded a special 

presumption of correctness under 29 U.S . C. § 2254(d); see 

Hernandez v. New York, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 1869 (1991). Following 

our careful review of the record on appeal, together with the 

parties' briefs and motions before this court, and applying these 

standards, we conclude that the district court correctly decided 

the ten issues presented. Therefore, for substantially the 

reasons stated in the district court's memorandum order dated 

January 31, 1992, we affirm the district court's judgment on these 

ten issues. 

Additionally, petitioner asserts three points of error by the 

district court in: 1) its failure to address petitioner's motion 

for an evidentiary hearing, 2) its failure to address two of 

petitioner's issues, numbered nine and ten, and 3) its failure to 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3039 Document: 010110152137 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 2 
address petitioner's motion for default on issues nine and ten. 

Our review of the record on appeal indicates that the district 

court did address petitioner's issues numbered nine and ten. See 

District Court's Memorandum and Order, IR. doc. 22 at 2, 6-7. 

The court ruled these issues to be without merit; we agree with 

that conclusion, as stated above. Petitioner also contends, as 

support for his motion for default on these issues, that 

respondents failed to address these issues in their initial 

response before the district court. Our review of the record 

indicates otherwise. See Answer and Return, IR. doc. 15 at 

12 - 14, 19. Because respondents addressed these issues in their 

initial response, there was no factual basis for petitioner's 

motion for default on these issues. Under these facts, the 

district court's order implicitly denied petitioner's default 

motion. See Reeves v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 909 F.2d 144, 

144 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Addington v. Farmer's Elevator Mut. 

Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. ), cert. denied, 454 U.S . 

1098 (1981 ) ) . Similarly, we conclude that the district court's 

order implicitly denied petitioner's motion for an evidentiary 

hearing, see id., therefore petitioner's assignment of error on 

this point is without merit. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3039 Document: 010110152137 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED; all outstanding motions are 

DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-3039 Document: 010110152137 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 4