Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01332/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01332-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

FILED 

United States Court of AppcaJs 

Tench Cirruit 

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 2 8 1991 

DENNIS REED GRENEMYER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

PRANK GUNTER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1332 

(D.C. No. 90-B-1296) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before AIIDBRSOR, TACBA, 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 Ped. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner-appellant Dennis Grenemyer appeals a district 

court order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus 

seeking release from custody pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2254. On 

appeal, Grenemyer argues the district court erred in finding he 

had not exhausted available state remedies before petitioning for 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1332 Document: 010110031043 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 1 
a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. We exercise 

jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. S 1291 and affirm. 

Grenemyer presently is incarcerated at the Fredmont 

Correctional Facility in Canon City, Colorado for sexually 

assaulting a child under the age of fifteen. His sentence of four 

years' imprisonment and one year of parole began December 22, 

1988. 

Grenemeyer's petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges four 

grounds for release from state custody: 

(1) The Colorado statute disallowing the admission of 

evidence of mistake in cases when a victim of sexual assault is 

below age fifteen, Colo. Rev. Stat. S 18-3-406 (1986), is 

unconstitutional. The application of the statute deprived 

Grenemyer of a fair trial and the right to confront witnesses 

against him. 

(2) The mittimus erroneously listed a conviction for 

violation of the wrong statute and was dated March 21, 1986. 

Because four years had passed and the mittimus had not been been 

amended, Grenemyer's continued incarceration is illegal. 

(3) The conviction was obtained as a result of perjured 

evidence used knowingly and intentionally by the prosecutor. 

(4) The Colorado State Parole Board deprived Grenemyer of his 

right to mandatory parole in deciding on July 9, 1990 to deny him 

parole so he could serve more time in a Department of Corrections 

Facility, continue correctional treatment, and participate in a 

Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP). Assuming parole for sex 

offenders is not mandatory but rather discretionary, this 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1332 Document: 010110031043 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 2 
exception to mandatory parole violates the equal protection clause 

of the fourteenth amendment. Further, the SOTP is not presently 

available to Grenemyer at Fredmont. Finally, Grenemyer was denied 

his right to a speedy trial, and the prosecution failed to 

disclose evidence about a prior acquittal involving the same 

victim. 

A habeas corpus petitioner must exhaust available state 

remedies before seeking federal court intervention. 28 u.s.c. 

S 2254(b). In interpreting the exhaustion rule in section 2254, 

the Supreme Court has held that a district court must dismiss a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus containing any claim that has 

not been exhausted in state court. Rose Y.!.. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 

510 (1982). The Court in Rose explained that a petitioner then 

has the choice of returning to state court to exhaust his claims 

or resubmitting the petition so it presents only exhausted claims. 

Id. However, the Court pointed out that a prisoner who decides to 

resubmit exhausted claims and set aside unexhausted claims will 

risk dismissal of subsequent federal habeas petitions under the 

principle of abuse of the writ. Id. at 521; ~ 28 u.s.c. S 2254 

Rule 9(b). 

Grenemyer concedes the parole issue contained in ground four 

was not presented in state court, but he contends it is properly 

before the court in a habeas proceeding as a federal question. We 

disagree. If parole for sex offenders is mandatory under Colorado 

Revised Statutes S 16-11-310 as Grenemyer asserts, then the Parole 

Board's failure to grant parole may be remedied in a state habeas 

proceeding. See Thiret Y.!.. Kautzky, 792 P.2d 801, 808 (Colo. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1332 Document: 010110031043 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 3 
' 

1990). If parole is discretionary for individuals convicted of 

sexual assault on a child as the Colorado Supreme Court recently 

has held, see id. at 807, then Grenemyer must exhaust the state 

post-conviction remedy under Rule 35(c)(2) of the Colorado Rules 

of Criminal Procedure before challenging the constitutionality of 

this scheme of discretionary parole in federal court. 

Because Grenemyer has not sought state review by means of a 

petition for habeas corpus or a Rule 35 motion, we hold he has not 

exhausted available state remedies on all claims listed in the 

petition. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court and dismiss the 

petition. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1332 Document: 010110031043 Date Filed: 02/28/1991 Page: 4