Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05126/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05126-0/pdf.json

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

---

I FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci~cuir 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U EC 2 1 1990 

TENTH CIRCUIT &OBERT L HOECKER 

ROBERT MITCHUM WATKINS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RON CHAMPION, warden; ATTORNEY ) 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Clerk 

No. 90-5126 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 89-C-593-B) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Robert Mitchum Watkins, appearing prose, appeals the denial 

of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. S 2254. The district court dismissed the petition for 

failure to state a federal claim and for frivolousness. 

The crux of Watkin's appeal is rooted in the following 

sequence of events. A preliminary hearing was held in July of 

* 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: 90-5126 Document: 010110097294 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 1 
1984 before state court judge J. R. Settle. The minute entry 

reflects that the tt State dismissed case without prejudice,tt 

The minute entry for the same case before Judge Settle on the following day reflects that the", .. State withdraws oral motion to 

dismiss and Court withdrew Order of Dismissal granted to State 

.... Def. offered no objection; New PH set 7-26-84 ... ," 

Also appearing in the record is an Order for Hearing, signed by 

Judge Hardy Summers, indicating that a new preliminary hearing was 

scheduled on July 26, 1984 before Judge Settle. The trial was 

held before Judge Summers in October of 1984. 

Based on his interpretation of the foregoing events, Watkins 

raises a variety of arguments, including the following: that 

after Judge Settle granted the State's Motion to Dismiss at the 

first preliminary hearing, Judge Summers allowed the motion to be 

withdrawn and the case reinstated without a showing of new 

evidence, contrary to caselaw; that by presiding both over the 

hearing at which Watkins' case was reinstated as well as over his 

trial, Judge Summers deprived Watkins of his due process and equal 

protection rights as well as his right to a fair and impartial 

trial; and that once Judge Settle orally granted the State's 

Motion to Dismiss, the court's jurisdiction was terminated and all 

proceedings thereafter were unconstitutional. 

At the outset, we note that Watkins' arguments are premised 

on a factual assertion unsupported by the record before us, that 

Judge Summers presided over the hearing at which the State 

withdrew its Motion to Dismiss. Regardless, all of Watkins' arguments are either rooted in concerns of a procedural nature or 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5126 Document: 010110097294 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 2 
t .. 

based on the propriety of other matters solely within the purview 

of the state court. For example, the issue of the court's 

jurisdiction to proceed after it had granted the State's Motion to 

Dismiss falls squarely within the ambit of state court decisionmaking. Watkins raised this issue in the state courts, and the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the procedures 

followed did not strip the court of its jurisdiction. Claims of 

state procedural or trial errors do not present federal questions 

cognizable in a federal habeas corpus suit unless they deprive the 

petitioner of fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States 

Constitution. Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 843 (10th Cir. 

1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047 (1980). None of the claims 

presented rise to that level. 

Because no federal claim has been asserted, Watkins' petition 

"lack(s] an arguable basis either in law or in fact" and is, 

therefore, frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 32-, 109 

S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Watkins' petition. See Yellen v. Cooper, 

828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The judgment of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5126 Document: 010110097294 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 3