Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06398/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06398-0/pdf.json

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

---

f 

LAWRENCE 

v. 

STEPHEN 

GENERAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FI LED 

Uoitcd States Courr of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruir 

• , /1' li,:1 ( 1 1990 

E. FALLON, ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

w. 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

KAISER; ATTORNEY 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-6398 

(W.D. Okla.) 

(D.C. No. 89-1371-W) 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Lawrence E. Fallon, appearing prose, appeals the denial of 

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. 

Mr. Fallon pled guilty in state court and was convicted of 

forgery, falsely personating another, receiving a stolen credit 

card (six separate counts), unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, 

*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: 89-6398 Document: 01019967283 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 1 
and concealing stolen property, all after former conviction of a 

felony. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Mr. Fallon was sentenced to 

serve eleven years total, with the sentences on all counts to run 

concurrently. Mr. Fallon did not thereafter seek to withdraw his 

plea of guilty, and he pursued no direct appeal. He did file an 

application for post-conviction relief in the state district 

court, which was denied. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

affirmed the denial of such relief in an order dated May 31, 1989. 

R. Vol. III. 

In his habeas corpus petition filed in the district court, 

Mr. Fallon attacked his convictions on the basis that they 

constituted multiple punishments in violation of the Double 

Jeopardy clause of the Constitution, and that sentences imposed 

for some of the ten counts violated his right to due process 

because they exceeded the maximum sentences authorized by Oklahoma 

law. 1 With respect to his double jeopardy argument, Mr. Fallon 

11 requests this Court apply the 'same transaction test.' ' ' 

for Petitioner-Appellant at 10. 

Brief 

1 Mr. Fallon also raises additional issues in his brief on 

appeal. He argues that there was no factual basis for his 

conviction on count 2, his plea was defective because he was 

incorrectly advised with respect to the correct minimum and 

maximum punishments for certain of the counts to which he pled 

guilty, and, apparently, that his counsel was ineffective in 

failing to inform him properly of the minimum and maximum 

sentences. We do not address these issues because they were not 

raised in Mr. Fallon's petition filed in the district court. More 

fundamentally, we do not address these issues because the Oklahoma 

Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that they were procedurally 

barred, and Mr. Fallon has demonstrated neither cause, prejudice, 

nor fundamental miscarriage of justice which would justify 

disregarding that clear and express procedural bar under state 

law. See Harris v. Reed, 109 S.Ct. .1038 (1989); Dugger v. Adams, 

109 S.Ct. 1211, 1217-18 n. 6 (1989); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 

478, 485, 495 (1986); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6398 Document: 01019967283 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 2 
We affirm substantially for the reasons and on the authority 

set forth in the district court's detailed opinion in this case. 

Mr. Fallon states no cognizable double jeopardy claim. See United 

States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 109 S.Ct. 757 (1989); Blockberger 

v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932); Birr v. Shillinger, 894 

F.2d. 1160 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d. 

656 (10th Cir. 1989). 

As the district court noted, Mr. Fallon's plea bargain 

agreement specified eleven years incarceration, a period of time 

lawfully supported by two of the counts of conviction, and 

substantially less than the potential punishment which Mr. Fallon 

faced if the State had not dropped certain felony counts in 

connection with the bargain. The alteration of sentences for some 

of the ten counts from eleven to ten or fewer years, would have 

absolutely no effect upon the lawful incarceration period of 

eleven years established by the plea bargain and supported by at 

least two of the counts. Under the circumstances, the ~district 

court was correct in its conclusion that the error on the part of 

the state court judge does not rise to constitutional proportions, 

and would not support the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. In 

view of the State's apparent confession of error with respect to 

the sentence on some of these ten concurrent sentences, the 

district court granted Mr. Fallon leave to file further postconviction proceedings seeking relief, once again, in state court. 

In habeas proceedings the district court is free to fashion 

remedies as law and justice require. See Davis v. Reynolds, 890 

F.2d. 1105, 1112 (10th Cir. 1989). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6398 Document: 01019967283 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 3 
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6398 Document: 01019967283 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 4 
Appellate Case: 89-6398 Document: 01019967283 Date Filed: 05/01/1990 Page: 5