Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06166/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06166-0/pdf.json

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

---

F l LED 

United Scaies (t)un of Appeals 

Tenth Cb:uit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 12 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

OLAN RANDLE ROBISON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GARY MAYNARD, Warden, Oklahoma ) 

State Penitentiary; LARRY ) 

MEACHUM, Superintendent, ) 

Department of Corrections, ) 

State of Oklahoma; ATTORNEY ) 

GENERAL, of the State of ) 

Oklahoma, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 89-6166 

(D.C. No. CIV-86-534-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER ARD JODGMEHT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

The question before us is whether the district court erred in 

denying petitioner, Olan Randle Robison, an evidentiary hearing 

following remand from this court. We hold the district court 

properly construed the remand, and following its determination of 

the facts of the case, properly denied an evidentiary hearing. 

*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: 89-6166 Document: 010110031913 Date Filed: 04/12/1991 Page: 1 
When this case was initially before us, we upheld the 

constitutional validity of Mr. Robison's state conviction with one 

exception. Robison v. Maynard, 829 F.2d 1501 (10th Cir. 1987). 1 

Concerned, however, over the possibility the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals might have set aside that conviction on certain 

grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, we remanded the case to the 

district court for inquiry into why the specific conduct of the 

prosecutor was not raised in petitioner's state appeal. 2 Our 

order returned the case to the district court: 

for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing 

into the reasons why Petitioner's state appellate 

counsel did not raise the issue of prosecutorial 

misconduct in the state appeal and for further 

determination of the issue of adeauate representation in 

light of the evidence produced. 

Id. at 1513 (emphasis added). 

Upon receipt of the remand, the district court assigned the 

matter to a magistrate. On respondent's motion, the magistrate 

determined, contrary to our assumption, petitioner's state brief 

had raised the specific issue of prosecutorial misconduct about 

which we were concerned. Because of this finding, the magistrate 

determined an evidentiary hearing was precluded by the terms of 

1we set aside one of his death sentences on the basis of a 

constitutionally infirm instruction under Cartwright v. Maynard, 

822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir. 1987). Robison v. Maynard, 829 F.2d 1501, 

1509 (10th Cir. 1987). 

2

aecause the state had argued we were barred from hearing the 

merits of the issue on the ground of procedural bypass, we 

assumed petitioner's state appellate counsel had not raised those 

prosecutorial misconduct issues before the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6166 Document: 010110031913 Date Filed: 04/12/1991 Page: 2 
J 

our mandate. 3 Following a hearing on petitioner's objection to 

the magistrate's report, the district court denied petitioner's 

request to hold a new hearing and adopted the magistrate's 

recommendation. Specifically, the district court held: 

[T]he scope of the evidentiary hearing mandated by the 

Appellate Court was limited to proof on the issue of 

state appellate counsel's reason for failing to raise 

the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in Petitioner's 

state appeal. Having found that the issue was raised by 

counsel in his brief before the Court of Criminal 

Appeals, and having found that the Court of Criminal 

Appeals considered that issue in its determination of 

Petitioner's appeal, the scope of the evidentiary 

hearing may not be expanded as requested by the 

Petitioner. 

Petitioner's argument notwithstanding, that conclusion is in full 

accord with the terms of the mandate. 

Petitioner's initial thrust is that our mandate dictated an 

evidentiary hearing, and the district court's failure to comply 

with that dictate deprived him of the relief we ordered. That 

position overlooks the predicate upon which the case was returned 

to the district court. 

Our concern was that had petitioner's state appellate counsel 

presented to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals the full 

panoply of the prosecutor's egregious conduct, that court could 

have ordered a new trial -- not on constitutional, but on state 

grounds. The correlative of that concern, of course, is that were 

the egregious conduct fully considered by the state court, federal 

habeas corpus would not lie. Thus, the respondent was entitled to 

3The magistrate permitted petitioner to make an offer of proof, 

following which she reiterated her conclusion that this court was 

mistaken in assuming _the issue of prosecutorial misconduct had not 

been raised on appeal. On the basis of this conclusion, she 

decided our mandate had been fulfilled. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6166 Document: 010110031913 Date Filed: 04/12/1991 Page: 3 
a determination of whether there was factual support for our 

concern because a mistaken premise is not a basis for granting 

relief from a judgment. 

Moreover, petitioner reads our remand in sections. He thus 

attaches too much significance to the clause in which we directed 

an evidentiary hearing. Taken in context, that clause tied the 

need for an evidentiary hearing to the "reasons why Petitioner's 

state appellate counsel did not raise the issue of prosecutorial 

misconduct in the state appeal." The import of that linkage is 

that if the reasons were proper, no hearing was necessary. The 

district court correctly perceived that state appellate counsel's 

having fully raised the issue is the functional equivalent of 

having a valid reason for not raising the issue. 

To escape the inevitability of this conclusion, petitioner 

also argues that his offer of proof demonstrated his state 

appellate counsel was ineffective. He asserts that counsel 

presented the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in such a 

disjointed manner that his argument was lacking in persuasion. We 

have examined the state brief and agree that a much better job 

could have been done; indeed, the presentation is unskilled. 

Nonetheless, all the matters about which we were concerned were 

raised in the state court. If that court failed to conclude 

petitioner was entitled to a new trial as a result, we do not 

believe it was because his appellate counsel did not live up to 

the standard required by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 

(1984). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6166 Document: 010110031913 Date Filed: 04/12/1991 Page: 4 
To establish a Strickland denial of effective assistance of 

counsel, petitioner must prove that the conduct of counsel fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness and the result of 

the proceeding would have been different. Tapia v. Tansy. 926 

F.2d 1554 (10th Cir. 1991). While petitioner's state appellate 

lawyer was lacking in writing skills, he did recognize and raise 

the proper issues demanded by the case. Therefore, an objective 

view of his conduct will not permit us to say he acted 

unreasonably. Moreover, while petitioner forcefully argues a more 

polished effort by state counsel would have provoked the Oklahoma 

Court of Criminal Appeals to reverse his conviction, we are 

uncertain. Nevertheless, having failed to show counsel's 

representational efforts were not unreasonable, petitioner•s 

argument that the state court would have reversed the conviction 

is unavailing. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6166 Document: 010110031913 Date Filed: 04/12/1991 Page: 5