Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07071/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07071-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

EVERETT L. MAXEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FI LED 

U!lited Stacell Court of .Appeals 

'r.~~r~) (:;,r~·p! ;' 

MAR - 2 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

DAN M. REYNOLDS, and the 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

No. 89-7071 

(D.C. No. 89-32-C) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that ~ral 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. 

Everett Maxey appeals from the district court's denial of his 

application for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. 

Maxey was convicted by a jury of Shooting with Intent to Kill 

in violation of Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 652. He was found 

guilty of shooting his ex-wife, Margaret Zena, in the abdomen. 

* 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: 89-7071 Document: 01019965772 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 1 
Maxey appealed his conviction to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals and then brought an action for habeas relief to the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Before the 

district court, Maxey contended that the jury instructions were 

inadequate on the question of se~f defense and vidlated his right 

to a fundamentally fair trial, and that the trial judge erred in 

not granting a continuance to permit the defense to present a 

witness. Both contentions were reviewed by the Court of Criminal 

Appeals and the district court and were found to be without merit. 

In addition, Maxey brings a number of other contentions before 

this court, apparently raised for the first time. 

Maxey challenges the adequacy of the jury instructions. We 

review jury instructions to see if they "so infected the entire 

trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." United 

States Y.!. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 169 (1982). The contested jury 

instructions accurately addressed the law of self-defense. The 

jury instructions also gave adequate instruction to the jury on 

the state's burden of proof. We agree with the district court 

that there is no constitutional error in the jury instructions. 

Maxey's second challenge is to the failure of the state trial 

court to grant a continuance to permit him to bring forward a 

witness. "[W]hen a denial of a continuance forms a basis of a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not only must there have 

been an abuse of discretion, but 'it must have been so arbitrary 

and fundamentally unfair that it violates constitutional 

principles of due process."' Case .Y..:. Mondragon, 887 F.2d 1388, 

1396 (10th Cir. 1989) (quoting Hicks Y.!. Wainwright, 633 F.2d 1146, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7071 Document: 01019965772 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 2 
• 

1148 (5th Cir. 1981)). In evaluating the denial of the 

continuance, we consider 

the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; 

the likelihood that the continuance, if granted, woulde 

accomplish the purpose underlying the party's expressed 

need for the continuance; the inconvenience to the 

opposing party, its witnesses, and the court resulting 

from the continuance; a need asserted for the 

continuance and the harm that appellant might suffer as 

a result of the district court's denial of the 

continuance. 

Id. (quoting United States~ West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 

1987) (citations omitted)). On habeas, however, we focus 

primarily on Maxey's "need for a continuance and the prejudice or 

lack of prejudice resulting from its denial." Id. at 1397. 

Initially, we note that many of the West factors suggest 

denial of a continuance was proper: Maxey did not subpoena the 

witness, but relied on the state's subpoena. Moreover, the 

continuance would have interrupted a jury trial already nearing 

its conclusion by an indefinite period, causing considerable 

inconvenience to the court and jury. The evidence that Maxey 

sought to introduce through the witness, that Zena had access to 

and the opportunity to take the pistol, was conceded by a 

prosecution witness, Campbell. Although the witness's tes~imony 

might have more firmly shown Zena's access to and opportunity to 

take the gun, that access was established by Maxey and 

corroborated by Campbell. On this record, where numerous 

witnesses testified that Maxey had threatened Zena, that Maxey had 

access to the gun, and that he and Zena were seen struggling 

immediately after the gunshots were heard, we cannot say that the 

trial court's denial of the continuance fundamentally prejudiced 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7071 Document: 01019965772 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 3 
• 

Maxey where the core of the absent witness's testimony was 

available to the jury. We hold that the denial of the continuance 

was not "so arbitrary and fundamentally unfair that it violates 

constitutional principles of due process." 

Finally, Maxey raises numerous issues concerning ineffective 

assistance of counsel, ex post facto sentencing, improper police 

and prosecutorial conduct, and hearsay. None of these issues were 

apparently presented to the district court. We will not review 

state court proceedings for plain error when that error has not 

been presented first to the district court. Pope~ Turner, 426 

F.2d 783, 785 (10th Cir. 1970); see also Garrick~ Weaver, Nos. 

87-2807, 2812, 2813 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 1989); Blonde v. Bailar, 

548 F.2d 301, 305 (10th Cir. 1977). 

The certificate of probable cause and Maxey's motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. The order of the d-istr.ict 

court denying the writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED. 

shall issue forthwith. 

The mandate 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

-4-

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-7071 Document: 01019965772 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 4