Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02148/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02148-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uni<ed &lfe C.OU,r of Appeals Tenth Cl,euit 

FE.B 2 S 1988 

MELVIN LOUIS ROBERTS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TED WALLMAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2148 

(D.C. No. 87-580-R) 

( W. D. Ok la. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

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. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Melvin Louis Roberts (Roberts) commenced this petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging 

his 1968 conviction for robbery. Roberts is currently in the 

Appellate Case: 87-2148 Document: 010110027476 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, serving a 

sentence for an unrelated conviction. However, the 1968 

conviction challenged in this action was used to enhance Roberts's 

current prison sentence. 

In 1968, Roberts entered a plea of guilty to the charge of 

robbery in the first degree and received a five-year suspended 

sentence. No appeal was taken from that conviction. In 1972, the 

suspended sentence was revoked when Roberts was convicted of a 

second robbery charge. 

In 1979, Roberts filed an application 

relief in Oklahoma state court, alleging 

counsel failed to perfect an appeal from the 

for post-conviction 

his court-appointed 

1972 revocation of 

his suspended sentence. The state trial court denied relief. 

Roberts filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in 

1986, alleging the 1968 guilty plea was not knowingly, 

voluntarily, and intelligently entered as a result of his not 

being fully advised of his constitutional rights prior to entering 

that plea. The state trial court again denied relief, ruling that 

Roberts was procedurally barred from asserting this claim due to 

his failure to raise this issue in his first petition for 

post-conviction relief, as required by Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, 

§ 1086 (West 1986). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

affirmed this denial for the same reasons. 

Roberts then initiated this action for habeas relief, 

alleging his 1968 guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and 

intelligent. The district court denied relief. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2148 Document: 010110027476 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2 
For substantially the reasons stated in the district court's 

order, the judgment of the United States District Court for the 

West ern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2148 Document: 010110027476 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 3