Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07103/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07103-0/pdf.json

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

---

F'I LED 

United States Co· m. oi. Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS T~t.h r.it•rnit. . 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM H. WARREN, JR. , 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 2 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-7103 

(D.C. No. 89-93-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

William H. Warren, Jr. (petitioner), a state prisoner, 

appeals from a district court order adopting a recommendation of a 

magistrate to deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2254. Pending before this court are 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-7103 Document: 010110028858 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 1 
' 

petitioner's motions for a certificate of probable cause and leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis. Because we find the issues raised 

by petitioner to be nonfrivolous, we grant both motions. 

In his petition, which was filed with an accompanying 

memorandum brief, petitioner challenged his convictions and 

sentences by an Oklahoma court for conspiracy to commit armed 

robbery and felony murder on the following grounds: 

(1) State 

accomplice 

petitioner 

evidence was 

offered no evidence, 

Grayson's testimony 

to the crimes charged 

insufficient as a matter 

independent of 

which connected 

themselves. The 

of law. 

(2) The trial court failed to instruct that there must 

be corroborative evidence connecting each defendant 

separately to the ffense (sic) charged and when the 

prosecution, compounding the lack of information with 

misinformation, argued that any indication that 

accomplice Grayson knew what he was talking about 

constituted corroborating evidence. 

(3) The trial judge, over defense objections, permitted 

codefendant testimony on the existence of an agreement 

without there first being independent evidence showing 

the exiatence (sic) of an agreement. The fact that 

Grayson's agreement testimony was inadmissible in turn 

caused there to be insuffucuent (sic) evidence. The 

prosecution never presented independent evidence of the 

existence of an agreement. 

(4) Contravention of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth 

amendments to the United States · Constitution and in 

contravention of Oklahoma law--in permitting the 

prosecution to introduce statements of petitioner which 

were the product of an illegal arrest. Such error 

particularly was prejudicial because the prosecution 

used the statements to purport that htere (sic) was 

corroboration of accomplice Grayson's testimony. 

(5) The trial court committed fundamental error by 

failing to instruct on second degree murder and on 

manslaughter in the first degree, in violation of the 

due process clauses of the United States and Oklahoma 

Constitutions. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-7103 Document: 010110028858 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 2 
I 

(6) The trial judge refused ro (sic) allow the defense 

to question juror Daniels on her mis trial (sic) 

statements concerning threats which allegedly had been 

made to the state's key witness, accomplice Grayson. 

(7) The trail (sic) court erred in failing to give 

petitioner's requested instruction that Grayson's prior 

felony conviction could be used by the jury in assessing 

his lack of credibility. 

(8) The trial court 

failing to give a 

Grayson's testimony. 

committed fundamental error 

cautionary instruction on 

by 

Roy 

(9) The trial court committed reversible error in 

denying petitioner's motion for serverance (sic) because 

such denial caused petitioner to have a death-qualified 

jury even though the state was not seeking to execute 

the petitioner, because petitioner was prejudiced by 

evid#nce (sic) which was incriminating as to co 

defendant (sic) Johns and not admissible as to 

petitioner, and because the lack of severance tented 

(sic) to confuse the issue of whether there was adequate 

corroboration as to petitioner. 

(10) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel under the authority of Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668, 80 L.Ed 2d 674, 104 s.ct. 2052 (1984), 

when counsel failed to secure any witness in favor of 

the alibi defense. u.s.c.A. Const. Amends. 6th and 

14th. 

(11) Petitioner was denied effective assistance of 

appellate counsel under the authority of Evitts v. 

Lucey. 469 U.S. 387, 83 L.Ed. 2d 821, 105 s.ct. 830 

(1985), when counsel failed to present meritorious 

issues on direct appeal. 

Appellate counsel failed to present on direct appeal the 

issue of the states (sic) star witness testified to a 

different murder at the preliminary hearing in order to 

get petitioner bound over for trial. 

(12) Petitioner was denied due process of law under the 

authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L.Ed. 2d 

215, 83 S.Ct. 1184 (1963), when the state suppressed the 

statement of the state's star witness. 

(13) Petitioner was denied due process of law under the 

authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L.Ed. 

2d. 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), when the state suppressed 

psychological records of the state's star witness. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-7103 Document: 010110028858 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 3 
? 

' 

The magistrate's report dealt fully and fairly with each of 

the issues raised by appellant. Upon our review of the 

proceedings, we find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-7103 Document: 010110028858 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 4