Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06048/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06048-0/pdf.json

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

---

. 

' 

FILED "~ United States Co~rt <?f Ap-;,eala 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WINFORD LEE BUSSELL, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN KAISER; ROBERT H. HENRY, 

Attorney General, State of 

Oklahoma, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP O G 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6048 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-645-T) 

( W. D . Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. 

This matter is before the court on appellant's application 

for a certificate of probable cause. We issue a certificate of 

probable cause pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2253 (1988), and proceed to 

* 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: 91-6048 Document: 010110089368 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 1 
the merits of petitioner's appeal. 

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of first degree murder 

and one count of second degree burglary in the District Court of 

Comanche County, Oklahoma, on September 18, 1989. He did not file 

a direct appeal. On March 21, 1990, however, petitioner attempted 

to challenge his plea in an application for post-conviction relief 

in the state trial court. The state trial court denied the application on the grounds of procedural bar; petitioner failed to 

challenge the plea agreement on direct appeal. The Oklahoma Court 

of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction petition, also relying on procedural bar. 

Petitioner then brought this prose petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus in the District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254 (1988). The bulk of his 

claims challenge the validity of his plea agreement. The district 

court found that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rested its 

decision on a state procedural bar rule in accordance with Harris 

v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 265 (1989). After applying the facts of 

petitioner's case to the "deliberate bypass" test set forth in Fay 

v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963), the district court held that petitioner is procedurally barred from obtaining federal habeas 

review. 

After reviewing the record and the arguments of petitioner, 

we affirm the judgment of the district court but employ slightly 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6048 Document: 010110089368 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 2 
different analysis. Since the district court issued its opinion, 

the Supreme Court invalidated the "deliberate bypass" test of Fay 

v. Noia even in instances where a petitioner has surrendered 

entirely his right to appeal his state conviction. Coleman v. 

Thompson, No. 89-7662, Slip Op. at 24 (U.S. June 24, 1991). We 

now apply the "cause and actual prejudice" test set forth in 

Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). We agree with the district court that the evidence before it demonstrated "deliberate 

bypass," and therefore conclude that the petitioner cannot meet 

the more exacting "cause and actual prejudice" test. Except for 

its use of the cause and actual prejudice test, we affirm the 

judgment for substantially the reasons given by the trial court. 

We note, however, that petitioner now complains on appeal 

that five days after his plea he attempted to withdraw it. He 

submits here an affidavit not found in the district court record 

from a fellow inmate stating that petitioner gave a jailer a plea 

withdrawal to give to petitioner's attorney. According to the 

affidavit, petitioner's counsel never visited petitioner at the 

jail. Petitioner alleges that the jailer told him that he didn't 

make calls to lawyers. 

It is clear that ineffective assistance of counsel or the 

failure of the state to provide counsel on direct review or during 

the decision not to appeal would constitute cause for petitioner's 

procedural default. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 

(1986); Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396-97 (1985). Despite our 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6048 Document: 010110089368 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 3 
effort to construe liberally a petitioner's prose pleadings, 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Gillihan v. 

Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 1989), however, we find 

that petitioner did not allege in the district court facts demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel or the deprivation of 

counsel during his decision not to appeal. Petitioner's sole 

reference to the failure to file a direct appeal in his behalf 

comes at the end of an allegation relating to alleged conflicts of 

interest of appointed co-counsel. Petitioner did not allege any 

communication on his part relating to a plea withdrawal, but only 

that appointed counsel failed to file an appeal. Moreover, review 

of the transcript of the hearing reveals that petitioner expressed 

his desire to waive an appeal when entering his plea. Because the 

petitioner did not sufficiently raise the issue before the district court, we will not entertain it here. Gillihan, 872 F.2d at 

938; Graham v. City of Oklahoma City, 859 F.2d 142, 146 n.6 (10th 

Cir. 1988). Such an allegation is so sufficiently pertinent to 

even the "deliberate bypass" test that petitioner's failure to 

raise it cannot be excused. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6048 Document: 010110089368 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 4