Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06261/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06261-0/pdf.json

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

---

JUAN P. 

v. 

STEPHEN 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L 1) United States Court of Appeal, 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CANALES, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

KAISER, Warden, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

Tenth Circuit 

DEC 18 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6261 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. CIV-92-266-T) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Juan Pena Canales appeals the denial of his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 2254. He also asks 

us to grant his application for a certificate of probable cause, 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

* 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: 92-6261 Document: 010110152739 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 1 
Canales, an inmate at the Lexington Correctional Center, 

Lexington, Oklahoma, pled guilty in Oklahoma State Court to 

twenty-one counts of lewd molestation of a minor child (his stepdaughter), and one count of sodomy, for which he was sentenced to 

a total of twenty years imprisonment. Although advised by the 

state district court judge of his right to appeal, and his right 

to have an attorney represent him on appeal without charge, R. 

Vol. I, Transcript of Proceedings, Dec. 28, 1989, unnumbered p.5, 

Canales did not take a direct appeal from his judgment and 

sentence. Subsequent post-conviction proceedings in the Oklahoma 

State Courts were rejected on procedural bar grounds. 

The premise of Canales's federal habeas petition is that 

pedophiles are, by definition, insane or mentally diseased to the 

point that they are incompetent to stand trial or plead guilty. 

Accordingly, Canales argues that his counsel was ineffective by 

failing to file "an application to determine my competence to 

stand trial and/or plead guilty and plead a defense of not guilty 

by reason of my being an insane pedophile at the time of the 

crimes." R. Vol. I, Petition at 8. And, based on the same 

premise, Canales argues that his constitutional rights were 

violated when the state district court judge taking the plea of 

guilty did not, sua sponte, order a competency hearing prior to 

the acceptance of a guilty plea. Id. at 6, 8. Finally, and also 

based on the same premise, Canales argues that he is "factually 

innocent of the crime charged due to my being a pedophile." Id. 

at 8. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-6261 Document: 010110152739 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 2 
By virtue of his ineffectiveness claim, Canales argues that 

he should not be procedurally barred from proceeding in federal 

court because he has shown cause and prejudice and, alternatively, 

that his petition should be heard because he is "factually 

innocent" by virtue of being a pedophile. 

In a well-reasoned and thorough report and recommendation, 

filed May 28, 1992, the magistrate judge addressed Canales's 

petition and held, alternatively, that the petition was 

procedurally barred, and that the petition should be denied on the 

merits. On July 13, 1992, the district court adopted the 

magistrate judge's recommendation that Canales's petition should 

be dismissed on the grounds of procedural bar and failure to 

demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of 

justice which would justify federal review. 

Upon careful examination of the record, we GRANT Canales's 

application for a certificate of probable cause, and AFFIRM the 

dismissal of his petition substantially on the grounds and for the 

reasons stated in the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

the order of the district court, referred to above. That is, we 

hold that the petition is procedurally barred and, alternatively, 

we hold that Canales's claims are meritless. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6261 Document: 010110152739 Date Filed: 12/18/1992 Page: 3