Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06347/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06347-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

JACK 

vs. 

JACK 

PILED 

Uoited State5 C:Ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Ci~cuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

fviAR 2 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

RICHARD CHAMBERS, JR., ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

) No. 90-6347 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-1131-W) 

COWLEY, ) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant Jack Richard Chambers, Jr., an inmate in 

the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, appeals pro 

se from the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of 

habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner 

presently is serving a 150-year sentence following his conviction 

of the crime of robbery with firearms after former conviction of 

two or more felonies. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 § 801. His 

* This order and judgment has no preced~ntial 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 1 
conviction was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 

Chambers v. State, 764 P.2d 536 (Okla. Cr. 1988), and pis 

subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief were denied. 

Thus, petitioner has exhausted all state remedies for purposes of 

obtaining federal habeas review. 

Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of 

counsel in violation of his rights under the sixth amendment. He 

contends that trial and appellate counsel should have challenged 

the constitutionality of his two prior convictions used for 

enhancement of his present sentence. According to petitioner, 

these convictions were obtained pursuant to guilty pleas which 

were not knowing and voluntary. These pleas previously had been 

held to be knowing and voluntary by Oklahoma courts in two postconviction proceedings. We cannot say that petitioner's trial and 

appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective in declining 

to challenge the validity of his prior convictions when the guilty 

pleas which led to such convictions previously had been found 

proper by the highest court in the state. See Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

Petitioner also contends that trial and appellate counsel 

were constitutionally ineffective because they failed to 

investigate his prior mental condition for the purpose of 

challenging his competency to stand trial. He does not allege 

that he informed counsel of his prior mental illness, nor does he 

claim that his demeanor should have led counsel to question his 

competency. "The adequacy or reasonableness of an attorney's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 2 
action is necessarily conditioned by the defendant's own actions 

or inaction." United States v. Miller, 907 F.2d 994, 998 (10th 

Cir. 1990). Given defendant's failure to provide them with notice 

that an inquiry was necessary, we cannot say that petitioner's 

trial and appellate counsel were constitutionally deficient for 

failing to investigate his mental condition. Accordingly, we 

affirm the denial of petitioner's habeas petition substantially 

for the reasons set forth the district court's order, a copy of 

which is attached hereto. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 3 
·----- ·. ·-- ·-::·- .. · .. • •· · 

) ' . - :. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA OCT 2 6 1990 

JACK RICHARD CHAMBERS, JR., ) 

) 

Petitioner ) 

) 

vs. ) No. CIV-90-1131-W 

) 

JACK COWLEY, ) 

) 

Respondent ) 

J U D G M E N T 

Upon consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus 

filed herein and the Court's Memorandum Opinion, 

. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition be and 

the same is hereby denied. 

DATED this cl,~ day of October, 1990. 

_, 

,,.- ,. I ·~ _/;// .. _. 

-· . :> ;,c>'_ iY(,,{_ ,tL',{( _, / / '(_..-,,~ ---- ,/' LEE R. WEST 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 4 
) 

, .... ,. ~ :·;., t.... ,i 

. . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR !I'H:E:1 .,_ ;:. 

, .. 1 . . l 

- WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

JACK RICHARD CHAMBERS, JR.' ) 

) 

Petitioner ) 

) 

vs. ) No. CIV-90-1131-W 

) 

JACK COWLEY, . ) 

) 

Respondent ) 

. . . ~ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se ··· and in forrna 

pauoeris, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. §2254. The respondent has filed his Rule 5 response, 

to which the petitioner has replied, and the matter is at issue. 

The Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary, 

as the issues can be resolved on the basis of the record. Townsend 

v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963), Cartwricrht v. Mavnard, 80-2 F.2d 

1203, 1216 (10th Cir. 1986), aff'd 486 U.S. 356 (1988). 

In this proceeding, petitioner raises six assertions of error 

regarding the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel. A 

review of the state court records furnished by respondent indicates 

that in May of 1985 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State 

of Oklahoma, Case No. CRF-84-535, petitioner was found guilty by 

a jury of Robbery with Firearms, after Former Conviction of Two or 

More Felonies. The jury recommended and the judge imposed a 

sentence of 150 years. A timely appeal was perfected on behalf of 

petitioner to the Court of Criminals Appeals which affirmed the 

conviction and sentence. Chambers v. State, 764 P.2d 536 (Okla. 

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 5 
• 

must overcome the strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls 

within the "wide range of reasonable professional assistance." 

Strickland v. Washinaton, 466 U.S. at 689. 

Circuit recently 

As put by the Tenth 

The reasonableness of counsel's performance is 

to be evaluated from counsel's perspective at 

the time of the alleged error and in light of 

all the circumstances, and the standard of 

review is highly deferential. 

United States v. Miller, 907 F. 2d at 997, auoting Kimmel man v. 

Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 (1986) (citing Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. at 688-689). Next, the petitioner must show 

that this deficient performance prejudiced the defense, to the 

extent that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would 

have been different." Strickland v. Washinatcn, 466 U.S. at 694. 

There is no reason to address both components of the Strickland 

inquiry if the petitioner makes an insufficient showing on one. 

Id. at 697. 

To substantiate his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

petitioner argues that counsel failed to investigate his mental 

condition. Petitioner asserts if counsel had conducted an 

investigation he would have discovered that on May 22, 1974 he was 

ruled insane by the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. PMH 

74-188 and committed to Eastern State Hospital, and on August 5, 

1981 he was ruled insane by the District Court of Muskogee County, 

case No. PMH-81-37 and committed to Eastern State Hospital. 

Petitioner asserts his "sanity" has not been restored in either 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 6 
• -· .. \ 

case. Petitioner further argues because the prior guilty pleas, 

used to enhanced the challenged sentence, were entered during a 

time when he had been adjudicated insane, counsel should not have 

allowed or at least argued against their use for enhancement 

purposes. Petitioner claims that counsel had a responsibility to 

ascertain that he was not competent to stand trial. 

states: 

The appointed trial counsel never investigated 

as to this evidence, and the Petitioner does 

not recall him ever inquiring about his mental 

history. Had trial counsel done so and 

challenged the said Tulsa County prior 

convictions accordingly, and/or requested a 

prompt inquiry and psychiatric examination of 

Petitioner via proper application, there is a 

reasonable probability that the district trial 

judge would have, ~t the very least, ordered 

an immediate examination of Petitioner to 

determine if he was competent to stand trial. 

Petitioner's "Reply to Respondent's Response," pp. 5-6. 

Petitioner 

However, "[t)he adequacy or reasonableness of an attorney's 

action is necessarily conditioned by the defendant's own actions 

or inaction." United States v. Miller, 907 F.2d at 998. Although 

petitioner now faults both his trial and appellate counsel for 

failing to investigate his mental history, he has not established 

or even suggested that counsel was aware that petitioner had a 

history of treatment for mental problems. 

With the exception of those instances where a 

defendant's behavior or demeanor should 

communicate to his counsel or the Court that 

the defendant suffers from a mental disability, 

incapacity or impairment, an investigation, 

such as the investigation that (petitioner] 

claims his trial attorney failed to conduct, 

cannot be charged as a claim of "ineffective 

assistance of counsel" when the essential and 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 7 
·-- ---· .. -~,-· ,----· . 

• 

foundational information required to trigger 

such an investigation is withheld from the 

defendant's attorney by the defendant himself. 

As this court has noted, "[t]he reasonableness 

of an attorney's decision not to conduct an 

investigation is directly related to the 

information the defendant has supplied." 

United States v. Miller, 907 F.2d at 998-999, quoting Coleman v. 

Brown, 802 F.2d 1227, 1233 (10th cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 

909 (1987); United States v. Rhodes, 913 F.2d 839 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Nowhere does petitioner allege that he ever informed trial counsel 

or appellate counsel of his claimed mental incapacities, nor does 

he suggest that his behavior or demeanor was __ s~c_h that counsel or 

the court should have recognized that he was insane. Thus, counsel 

can not be held responsible for petitioner's failure to inform them 

of his prior mental history. The Court, therefore, fails to find 

any deficiency on the part of trial or appellate counsel in 

relation to not discovering petitioner's alleged mental condition 

and thereafter taking appropriate steps to challenge the current 

judgment and sentence. 

Moreover, even assuming a deficiency on the part of counsel 

the petitioner has failed to establish prejudice, i.e., that the 

judge would have found the prior convictions could not be used to 

enhance the present sentence. Here, the record indicates that the 

petitioner in fact challenged the prior conviction in postconviction proceedings in Tulsa County. In an order dated January 

24, 1978, District Judge Raymond W. Graham denied post-conviction 

relief. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on March 24, 1978, 

affirmed. Both courts held that the guilty pleas were entered 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 8 
.. 

I • 

) 

knowingly and voluntarily. In light of these rulings it is not 

probable that the district judge would have determined the prior 

guilty pleas could not be used for enhancement purposes. Beachum 

v. Tansy. 903 F.2d 1321, 1330 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, __ 

U.S. __ , 59 U.S.L.W. 3276 (Oct. 9, 1990). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioner is not 

entitled to habeas relief, and his petition must therefore be 

denied. A judgment shall enter accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this tj.\o~ day of October, 1990. 

,c&ed,ibv 

/ LEE R. WEST 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6347 Document: 010110031323 Date Filed: 03/26/1991 Page: 9