Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06050/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06050-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

FILED 

LkUctc1 &aces Coa&t of Appeals 

Tenth Citc:uit 

SEP 41990 

UNITED sTATEs couRT oF APPEALs&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES L. ABELS , SR. , 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN KAISER, Warden; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6050 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1528-R) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

James L. Abels, Sr., prose. 

Robert H. Henry, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Steven Spears Kerr, 

Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for 

respondents-appellees. 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-6050 Document: 01019708259 Date Filed: 09/04/1990 Page: 1 
James L. Abels, Sr. appeals the denial of his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The issue on 

appeal is whether Abels was denied his right to appeal his state 

court conviction in violation of his constitutional rights under 

the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as made applicable to the states 

through the Fourteenth Amendment in the factual circumstances of 

this case.

1 

Abels entered guilty pleas to several charges of embezzlement 

in an Oklahoma state court. He was represented by retained 

counsel. After sentencing, he filed, on the same day, a notice of 

intent to appeal and a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The 

motion to withdraw the plea was denied. The time for perfecting 

an appeal expired with no brief being filed by Abels' retained 

counsel, apparently because Abels had failed to pay for the 

services counsel had already performed. In a letter to the clerk, 

Abels' retained counsel indicated that he was no longer 

representing Abels. Despite their falling out, counsel did assist 

Abels in his attempt to secure representation by the public 

defender, but the state district court denied Abels' motion on 

grounds that he did not establish indigency. After assisting 

Abels in his attempt to establish indigency, Abels' retained 

counsel filed a motion to withdraw his representation which was 

granted by the state court. 

1 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant's application for a 

certificate of probable cause is granted. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6050 Document: 01019708259 Date Filed: 09/04/1990 Page: 2 
At a later date Abels filed post-conviction relief 

applications in state district court. When these were denied they 

were appealed unsuccessfully to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals. The papers in those proceedings are not part of the 

record submitted to us o~ appeal; but they apparently raised the 

issues now presented to this court. See District Court's 

Memorandum Opinion of Jan. 18, 1990, I R. doc. 13 at 3-4. Abels 

then commenced this habeas action in federal district court; the 

district court denied relief. 

Abels has filed an affidavit, which is in the record, showing 

he has real property he values at $32,300 and personal property he 

values at about $1,000. These, he says, are subject to tax and 

other liens of about $26,500. He admits to a Navy pension of $806 

monthly, which he asserts must support his wife who is unable to 

work. The state trial court apparently found that Abels had 

property worth in excess of $100,000 and pension and rental income 

of more than $1,000 per month. See I R. doc. 9 at 3. The 

district court's opinion below recited that "(t]he trial court's 

order of November 21, 1988, set out in·great detail those reasons 

why petitioner was denied in forma pauperis treatment." I R. doc. 

13 at 7. That order is not part of the appellate record. The 

appellate record contains insufficient evidence to permit us to 

overturn the state court's determination that Abels was not 

indigent at the time he was convicted in the state court in 

December 1987. We therefore reject Abels' argument that the state 

court denied him counsel on appeal by resolving the issue of 

indigency against him. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6050 Document: 01019708259 Date Filed: 09/04/1990 Page: 3 
The precise issue on appeal, then, is whether Abels' 

constitutional rights were violated when his retained counsel 

refused to proceed on appeal and the state refused to provide h£m 

with appointed counsel after making a finding, which we cannot 

find clearly erroneous, that he was not indigent, and no appeal 

was ever perfected. 

Abels asserts correctly that the United States Supreme Court 

has held in Evitts v. Lucey, 469 u.s. 387 (1985), and Cuyler v. 

Sullivan, 446 u.s. 335 (1980), that there is no difference between 

the standards applied to retained versus appointed counsel in 

assessing whether a defendant's constitutional right to competent 

counsel has been violated. In either event, a defendant is 

entitled to effective counsel on appeal. See Evitts, 469 U.S. at 

395. Those same decisions clearly hold that because appeals are a 

part of the cr£minal process, a defendant is denied effective 

assistance of counsel if he asks his lawyer to perfect an appeal 

and the lawyer fails to do so by failing to file a brief, ~ 

Rodriguez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 329 (1969), a statement 

of appeal, see Evitts, 469 U.S. at 389, or otherwise. 

Rule 3.6A of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Cr£minal 

Appeals requires that, once an attorney makes an appearance, he 

must "diligently proceed with the appeal including the filing of a 

brief, until and unless withdrawal as the attorney of record is 

granted by" the court. In this case, Abels' retained counsel 

filed a notice of intent to appeal, which apparently constitutes 

an appearance sufficient to bind him to this duty. Our review of 

the district court's chronology indicates that at the t£me Abels' 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6050 Document: 01019708259 Date Filed: 09/04/1990 Page: 4 
time for appeal expired his retained counsel had not yet filed a 

motion to withdraw, much less had the motion been granted. Abels, 

therefore, had every right to expect that his counsel would follow 

his instructions in perfecting the appeal. Counsel's failure to 

do so, when he had not been relieved of his duties through a 

successful withdrawal, was a violation of Abels' constitutional 

right to effective assistance of counsel on his appeal as of 

right. See Evitts, 469 U.S. at 396-97. 

The district court below erred in applying the test of 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 u.s. 668 (1984), holding that Abels 

made no showing of prejudice. This was based upon the court's 

holding that Abels had presented to the state courts in postconviction proceedings the issue of the validity of his sentence 

and the state courts had determined that issue on the merits 

against him. Finding that the sentence was within the statutory 

maximum provided under state law and hence not challengable in a 

federal habeas action, it found no prejudice to Abel by the 

failure to take an appeal. 

In this court petitioner alleges correctly that when courts 

have found counsel constitutionally inadequate, because either 

retained or appointed counsel failed to properly perfect an 

appeal, they do not consider the merits of arguments that the 

defendant might have made on appeal. This was first set out in 

the Supreme Court in Rodriguez, 395 u.s. at 330: 

"Those whose right to appeal has been frustrated should 

be treated exactly like any other appellant; he should 

not be given an additional hurdle to clear just because 

the rights were violated at some earlier stage in the 

proceedings. Accordingly, we hold that the courts below 

erred in rejecting petitioner's application for relief 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6050 Document: 01019708259 Date Filed: 09/04/1990 Page: 5 
because of his failure to specify the points he would 

raise were his right to appeal reinstated." 

See also Robinson v. Wyrick, 635 F.2d 757 (8th Cir. 1981); Riser 

v. Craven, 501 F.2d 381, 382 (9th Cir. 1974); Grooms v. Solem, 520 

F. Supp. 1184 (E.S.D. 1981), aff'd without opinion, 685 F.2d 436 

(8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Mosiman, 604 F. Supp. 1003, 1013 

(E.D. Wise. 1985). In accordance with this court's holding in 

Wynn v. Page, 369 F.2d 930 (lOth Cir. 1966), we REMAND this case 

and direct that the case be held in abeyance for not longer than 

120 days from the date of issuance of this mandate to allow the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to grant Abels leave to appeal 

and provide him assistance of counsel. Should the Oklahoma court 

grant such leave, Abel's·writ shall be dismissed. If the Oklahoma 

court fails to grant Abels his appeal within the time specified, 

the writ shall issue discharging Abels. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6050 Document: 01019708259 Date Filed: 09/04/1990 Page: 6