Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05016/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05016-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

United Scates Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS Tenth Cirruit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DARYL DEE WILSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RON CHAMPION, Warden, and 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of 

Oklahoma, · 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG - 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5016 

(D.C. No. 89-C-274-B) 

(N. Dist. of Oklahoma) 

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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Daryl Wilson, a prose petitioner, is presently incarcerated 

pursuant to a conviction in state court for Second Degree Burglary 

for which he was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in 1987. The 

1987 conviction was enhanced as the result of Wilson's earlier 

conviction in 1983 for the same offense of Second Degree Burglary. 

* 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: 90-5016 Document: 010110040750 Date Filed: 08/09/1990 Page: 1 
Wilson petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, 

raising issues relating to his 1983 conviction. At the time of 

his petition, Wilson had completely served his sentence on the 

1983 conviction; on that basis, the district court concluded that 

he did not meet the "in custody" requirement for habeas relief and 

denied the petition. 

Wilson, as we have noted, is a prose litigant. We therefore 

construe his pleading liberally. Although Wilson expressly lists 

the 1983 conviction as the conviction under attack, "we think that 

the habeas petition, construed with the deference to which prose 

litigants are entitled, can be read as asserting a challenge to 

the [1987] sentence 

prior conviction. " 

., as enhanced by the allegedly invalid 

Malena v. Cook, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 1926-27 

(1989). Reading the petition as an attack on his present 

sentence, Wilson "satisfies the 'in custody' requirement" for 

habeas relief. Gamble v. Parsons, 898 F.2d 117, 118-19 (1990). 

The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the case 

is REMANDED for further proceedings. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5016 Document: 010110040750 Date Filed: 08/09/1990 Page: 2