Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08072/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08072-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LARRY CAMPBELL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United Scares C!Jun of Appeais 

TenthCir~it 

JAN 111991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-8072 

v. 

DUANE SHILLINGER and the 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF WYOMING, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

(D.C. No. Misc. 89-043) 

(D. Wyo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BALDOCK, SETH 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Larry Campbell, an inmate at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, 

appeals from the United States District Court's order denying his 

28 u.s.c. § 2254 petition. The district court also denied his 

*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: 89-8072 Document: 010110076367 Date Filed: 01/11/1991 Page: 1 
motions for a certificate of probable cause and to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

The procedural history underlying his appeal is as follows. 

A court-appointed attorney was assigned to represent Campbell at 

trial. Campbell was tried and convicted of one count of first 

degree sexual assault. After sentencing, a different attorney was 

appointed to represent him on appeal. He appealed to the Wyoming 

Supreme Court asserting only one issue, ineffective assistance of 

counsel. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. See 

Campbell v. State, 728 P.2d 628. A new attorney was appointed to 

represent him on his request for post-conviction relief. He was 

dissatisfied with the representation, however, and the court 

permitted him to file a supplemental brief. The Wyoming Supreme 

Court denied his request for post-conviction relief. After 

exhausting his state remedies, he filed for relief with the 

United States District Court. He now appeals the district court's 

dismissal. 

In his petition, Campbell raises several grounds which he 

believes entitle him to relief. Specifically, he asserts that he 

was denied effective assistance of counsel during the trial, 

appellate, and post-conviction stages. Further, he urges that the 

trial court violated his right to due process by persuading him to 

refrain from testifying, by commenting to the jury that he would 

present evidence in his defense, and by permitting the prosecutor 

to comment on the evidence during his opening statement. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-8072 Document: 010110076367 Date Filed: 01/11/1991 Page: 2 
Campbell first contends that he was denied effective 

assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed Campbell's 

petition because he failed to assert any factual grounds to 

support his claims, and his contentions were based upon conclusory 

allegations. We agree with the district court. 

In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, the United States 

Supreme Court set out a two-part test for evaluating an 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim: 

"First, the defendant must show that counsel's 

performance was deficient. This requires 

showing that counsel made errors so serious 

that counsel was not functioning as the 

'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the 

Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must 

show that the deficient performance prejudiced 

the defense. This requires showing that 

counsel's errors ·were so serious as to deprive 

the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose 

result is reliable." 

Id. at 687. In order to make a successful claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, petitioner must support his argument with a 

strong factual showing. 

Campbell has failed to meet either prong of this test. He 

asserts a number of reasons why counsel was ineffective at the 

trial level, such as counsel failed to inform him of ·available 

options, failed to investigate his case, and failed to protect and 

defend his interests. However, he has failed to support any of 

these generalizations with facts. Furthermore, he has failed to 

show how he was prejudiced as a result of these asserted 

deficiencies in counsel's representation. The record does not 

support his contention that counsel failed to present a defense. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-8072 Document: 010110076367 Date Filed: 01/11/1991 Page: 3 
In his brief Campbell contends that counsel failed to call 

witnesses on his behalf. However, Campbell fails to indicate who 

would have testified or what their testimony would have revealed. 

Deference must be given to trial counsel in determining the 

overall trial strategy. See United States v. Miller, 643 F.2d 

713, 714 (10th Cir.) (calling of witnesses is a tactical decision 

within the discretion of trial counsel). Merely alleging that 

counsel could have called witnesses without substantiating what 

they would have testified to is not enough to establish an 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In addition, counsel 

thoroughly cross-examined the government witnesses. In 

United States v. Dingle, 546 F.2d 1378, 1385 (10th Cir.), we found 

no merit in petitioner's allegation that counsel failed to present 

a defense where counsel's strategy consisted of attacking the two 

government witnesses. Similarly, counsel's vigorous crossexamination of the witnesses presented by the government 

constituted a defense. Therefore, we find no merit to Campbell's 

argument. 

Campbell's contention that he had ineffective assistance of 

counsel on appeal and during the post-conviction relief stage is 

equally without merit. Again, Campbell has failed to support his 

allegations with any facts, and has failed to show any prejudicial 

effect he may have suffered from the representation. He contends 

that counsel did not raise the issues that he wanted. This is not 

enough to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 

See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (on appeal, counsel is not 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-8072 Document: 010110076367 Date Filed: 01/11/1991 Page: 4 
constitutionally required to raise every nonfrivolous issue 

requested by defendant). Furthermore, Campbell was permitted to 

file a supplemental brief to address any claims that he wanted 

reviewed. 

Campbell's petition is filled with speculation and conclusory 

allegations which are unsupported by the facts. The record does 

not sustain his contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel 

by any standard. Therefore, we conclude that Campbell has failed 

to meet his burden under the Strickland test. 

Secondly, Campbell contends that the trial court encouraged 

him to refrain from testifying. We find no merit in this 

argument. The record sufficiently supports the finding that 

Campbell was not denied the right to testify. The trial court 

merely cautioned Campbell on the ramifications should he testify 

and stressed that the decision was between himself and his 

counsel. Thus Campbell voluntarily chose not to testify; 

therefore, we conclude there was no denial of his right to 

testify. 

Thirdly, Campbell contends that the trial court erred in 

commenting on the defendant's presentation of the evidence. 

During its introductory remarks, the trial court informed the jury 

how the trial procedure would unfold, starting with voir dire, 

opening statements, presentation of the evidence, and followed by 

closing arguments. Campbell asserts that the jury inferred from 

the trial court's comments that the defense was under an 

obligation to present evidence on its behalf. The trial court's 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-8072 Document: 010110076367 Date Filed: 01/11/1991 Page: 5 
introductory remarks were not prejudicial, Gaines v. Hess, 662 

F.2d 1364, 1370 (10th Cir.); therefore, we find no violation of 

his right to due process. 

Lastly, Campbell contends that the trial court erred in 

permitting the prosecutor to imply personal knowledge in 

discussing the facts of the case in his opening statement. It is 

well-settled law that counsel may not personally vouch for a 

witness' credibility, testify, or state his personal belief during 

argument to the jury. United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494, 1498 

(10th Cir.); United States v. Hook, 780 F.2d 1526, 1534 (10th 

Cir.). However, a review of the statements that Campbell contends 

constituted impermissible argument do not rise to the level of 

violating his due process rights. The prosecutor simply informed 

the jury about the case and what he believed the testimony would 

reveal. He did not testify or state his personal belief as 

Campbell contends. The prosecutor's statements were well within 

permissible bounds and did not deprive Campbell of a fair trial. 

The motions of Campbell for a certificate of probable cause 

and to proceed in forma pauperis have heretofore been granted, and 

the appeal of the trial court's action on the petition can be and 

is decided on the merits. All issues raised have been considered. 

We affirm the denial of Campbell's petition. 

AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-8072 Document: 010110076367 Date Filed: 01/11/1991 Page: 6