Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06372/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06372-0/pdf.json

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

---

' PILBD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALsJnited States Court of Appeals 'f enth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 2 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ELLIS L. BARNETT, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN KAISER and 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6372 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1275-D) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, 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-appellant Ellis Barnett was convicted in Oklahoma 

State Court of two counts of second degree burglary after former 

conviction of two or more felonies. He was sentenced to seventyfive years' imprisonment on each count, to be served 

consecutively. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. 

Subsequently, petitioner filed an application for post-conviction 

* 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: 90-6372 Document: 010110116658 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 1 
relief which was denied by the district court. This decision was 

upheld by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner then 

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district 

court, which was denied. 

The district court correctly concluded the jury wheel 

selection process did not violate petitioner's constitutional 

rights by systematically excluding blacks from the jury. To prove 

a constitutional violation, petitioner must show: 

(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 

"distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the 

representation of this group in venires from which 

juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in 

relation to the number of such persons in the 

community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is 

due to systematic exclusion of the group in the 

jury-selection process. 

Duren Y..!.. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979). In Duren, petitioner 

met this burden by proving there was a large discrepancy between 

the number of men and women in the weekly venire for nearly a 

year. Id. at 366-67. 

In the present case, petitioner has only shown that no blacks 

were drawn from the jury wheel for his trial. The trial court 

found the veniremen were drawn at random from the list of 

registered voters in the county in the manner prescribed by law. 

There is no evidence indicating blacks were systematically 

excluded from the jury selection process in this case. 

We find no merit in petitioner's contention that members of 

the sheriff's office were improperly involved in the selection of 

his jury. The record indicates individuals in the sheriff's 

office were responsible for contacting individuals selected for 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6372 Document: 010110116658 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 2 
jury service. There is no evidence indicating these employees 

somehow improperly excluded blacks. 

Finally, the district court properly concluded petitioner was 

not denied effective assistance of counsel during his trial and 

direct appeal. Although a defendant does have the ultimate 

authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding his 

case, he does not have the constitutional right to compel his 

counsel to press every issue requested. Jones Y...!.. Barnes, 463 U.S. 

745, 754 (1983). Petitioner's appointed counsel decided not to 

pursue petitioner's claim concerning the racial composition of his 

jury. As noted above, this claim is in fact without merit. 

Counsel's decision not to pursue this claim was neither deficient 

nor prejudicial to petitioner. See Strickland Y...!.. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 689 (1984). 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 

of an important federal right. We therefore DENY the certificate 

of probable cause. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). We 

waive the fees and DISMISS. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6372 Document: 010110116658 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 3