Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02191/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02191-0/pdf.json

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

---

RAYMOND 

v . 

ROBERT 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FIL~ D 

United Stav.m Court of Appeals 'J',..·· < i.. r :-"',114: 

CLARK, ) 

MAY 12 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

J. TANSY, 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-2191 

(D.C. No. 90-679-HB) 

(D . N.M.) 

Before MOORE, TACHA, 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 Fed . R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Raymond Clark appeals from an order of the 

district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

filed pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 2254 . We affirm. 

In 1988, in state court, Clark entered a plea of no contest 

to various charges including first degree murder of a peace 

* 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: 91-2191 Document: 010110247682 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 1
officer. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the state agreed 

not to pursue the death penalty, sentence enhancements based on 

the use of firearms, or habitual offender proceedings. Clark was 

sentenced to life in prison on the murder conviction with 

sentences on the remaining charges imposed concurrently with the 

life sentence. On direct appeal, Clark argued that the plea 

agreement was improperly executed and accepted and that he had 

received ineffective assistance of counsel. Relief was denied. 

Clark then filed this petition in federal district court 

alleging that his plea was involuntary because he was not told 

that the state did not have sufficient evidence to obtain a murder 

conviction. He also alleged he received ineffective assistance of 

counsel on the ground that counsel had not properly investigated 

his case. The magistrate judge found that Clark' s allegations 

were conclusory and nonspecific and recommended dismissal of the 

complaint. The district court adopted the recommendation. 

On appeal, Clark argues that the district court erred in not 

holding an evidentiary hearing. He argues that a hearing was 

required because the facts were in dispute and he did not receive 

a full and fair hearing in state court. 

An evi dentiary hearing would have been required if the facts 

here were in dispute and if Clark had not received a full and fair 

hearing in state court, either at the time the plea was accepted 

or in a collateral proceeding. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 

293, 312 (1963). No evidentiary hearing was required, however, if 

Clark's allegations were "wholly incredible" in light o f the 

record. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977). 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-2191 Document: 010110247682 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 2
Moreover, "[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong 

presumption of verity." Id. 

Our review of the record, including the tape recording of the 

plea hearing, shows that Clark entered his plea knowingly and 

voluntarily. He agreed that the evidence against him was 

sufficient to secure a conviction. Clark has not overcome the 

presumption that the statements he made in open court were 

truthful nor has he persuaded us that his allegations are 

credible. No evidentiary hearing was necessary. 

Likewise, Clark has failed to present any credible evidence 

supporting his claim of ineffective counsel. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

See Strickland v. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

certificate of probable cause is GRANTED. 

Clark's motion for a 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-2191 Document: 010110247682 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 3