Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02071/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02071-0/pdf.json

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

---

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

,.J.~N 2: 1~SO 

CHARLES E. THOUVENEL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

-vsELOY MONDRAGON, 

Respondent-Appellee, 

r\.OEERT L. i--IOEC¥..ER 

No. 88-2071 

(D.C. No. 87-0145-HB) 

(Dist. of New Mexico) 

r1 , l 1-~ltT,( 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before ANDERSON and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL, District 

Judge.* 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argum_ent would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 3 4 (a) ; Tenth cir. R. 3 4, 1. 9. 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore 

Charles Thouvenel appeals from the district court's order 

adopting the findings and recommendations of the United States 

Magistrate dismissing with prejudice appellant's petition for writ 

of habeas corpus. 

Thouvenel pled guilty in New Mexico state court to one count 

of burglary (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-3 · (1978)) and to a 

supplemental criminal information charging him with being an 

habitual offender. 

*Honorable David L. Russell, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2071 Document: 01019961072 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 1 
( 

The trial court sentenced the Defendant as follows: 

IT IS THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT AND 

SENTENCE OF THE COURT as to CT. I, the 

Defendant [Petitioner, herein] be 

committed to the custody of the 

corrections Division of Criminal Justice 

Department for a period of EIGHTEEN (18) 

MONTHS followed by one year on parole. 

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT that 

the sentence in Count I. be, and the same 

is hereby suspended. 

IT IS THE FURTHER JUDGMENT AND 

SENTENCE OF THE COURT that as a result of 

being found to be an HABITUAL OFFENDER, 

DEFENDANT SERVE one (1) year followed by 

one vear on oarole. [Emphasis added]. 

(Petitioner's Memorandum brief, Exhibit 

"E") 

Thouvenel filed with the state trial court a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus complaining of the imposition of the oneyear term of parole. The state district court denied the petition 

and the New Mexico Supreme Court denied certiorari without 

explanation. Thereafter Thouvenel filed this action in the United 

States District Court for the District of New Mexico. 

Thouvenel contends the trial court's imposition of a oneyear parole term exceeded the statutory maximum and thus deprived 

him of liberty without due process of law. Under New Mexico law 

a one-year parole term is required to be served by any person who 

is convicted of a fourth degree felony and as a result serves a 

sentence of imprisonment. N. M. Stat. Ann. § 31-21-10 ( C) (Repl. 

Pamp. 1987). Thouvenel was convicted of burglary, a fourth degree 

felony. The court suspended the sentence for burglary but imposed 

a one~year prison sentence for being an habitual offender under 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2071 Document: 01019961072 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 2 
• 

N. M. Stat. Ann. § 31-18-17 (B) (Repl. Pamp. ( 1987) followed by a 

one-year parole term. 

Thouvenel contends he could receive a parole term only if he 

served a prison term for the burglary - not for being an habitual 

criminal. 

Apparently the state courts of New Mexico have concluded that 

a sentence for being an habitual offender is not a separate 

sentence but results in the enhancement of the underlying offense, 

in this case burglary, and therefore, pursuant to Section 

31-21-10 of the New Mexico Statutes, a subsequent parole term is 

appropriate. 

This Court has no reason to believe that the state courts did 

not fully and fairly consider Petitioner's claim such that this 

Court would be compelled to deviate from the presumptively correct 

state court determinations. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sumner v. Mata, 

455 U.S. 591, 102 s.ct. 1302, 71 L.Ed.2d 480 (1982); Sumner v. 

Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 101 s.ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). 

It is axiomatic that federal courts may intervene in the 

state judicial process only to correct wrongs of constitutional 

dimensions. Engle v. Isaac, _456 U.S. 107, 126-128, 102 s.ct. 

1558, __ , 71 L.Ed.2d 783, 799-801 (1982). Federal habeas corpus 

does not ~erve as a vehicle for another appellate review of an 

issue that is a state law question which has been properly 

reviewed by the highest state court rendering the state court 

judgment binding on the federal court sans constitutional 

deprivations. See Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 s.ct. 2221, 53 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2071 Document: 01019961072 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 3 
• 

L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 82 s.ct. 

248, 7 L.Ed.2d 207 (1961); Brecheisen v. Mondragon, 833 F.2d 238, 

240 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, __ u.s. __ , 108 s.ct. 

1479, 99 L.Ed.2d 707 (1988). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2071 Document: 01019961072 Date Filed: 01/22/1990 Page: 4