Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03304/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03304-0/pdf.json

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

---

I 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RAYMOND OWENS, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • ) 

) 

RAYMOND ROBERTS, Kansas State ) 

Penitentiary Warden, and ATTORNEY ) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, ) 

No. 90-3304 

(D.C. No. 90-3345-S) 

(District of Kansas) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This matter is before the court on petitioner's motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We grant petitioner's 

motion and proceed to the merits of the case. 

Mr. Raymond Owens pled guilty in a Kansas court to one count 

of taking indecent liberties with a child, in violation of K.S.A. 

* 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: 90-3304 Document: 010110084293 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 1 
I , 

§ 21-3503. Mr. Owens ultimately was sentenced to three to ten 

years, the minimum sentence, but was denied probation. Mr. Owens 

appealed his sentence to the state appellate court. 

Because Mr. Owens was appealing the minimum sentence, the 

state appellate court presumed that he was appealing the denial of 

probation. The Kansas state appellate court held that it was 

without jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from the denial of 

probation. Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the appeal. 

Without undertaking any collateral state action, Mr. Owens 

next brought this habeas corpus action in federal district court. 

The district court dismissed because Mr. Owens failed to exhaust 

state remedies. We review the dismissal de novo. Morgan v. City 

of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1986). 

It appears that those courts do have jurisdiction to 

entertain a collateral challenge. See K.S.A. § 60-1507. Thus, 

Mr. Owens must exhaust that state remedy before bringing a federal 

habeas corpus action. We therefore need not pass on Mr. Owens' 

motions requesting additions to the record on appeal. 

The order of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3304 Document: 010110084293 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 2