Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03125/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03125-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. I 

: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SHERMAN GALLOWAY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FIL ED 

Uniwcl S~tes Co~rt~t Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

SEP O 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

RAYMOND ROBERTS and ROBERT T. 

STEPHAN, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-3125 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-3148) 

(District of Kansas) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

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 petitioner's motion for 

leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees and 

application for a certificate of probable cause. We grant petitioner's motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs 

* 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: 91-3125 Document: 010110084291 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 1 
or fees, see 28 u.s.c. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 

U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962), and 

issue a certificate of probable cause pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2253. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). 

Mr. Sherman Galloway appeals the denial by the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas of his petition for 

habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). He 

challenges his state convictions of rape, aggravated sodomy and 

kidnapping. Petitioner asserts here his arguments at the district 

court that evidence introduced at trial was obtained during an 

invalid search and that he was deprived of his constitutional 

right against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense. 

Petitioner's first claim deals with the scope of authority of 

a Kansas University police officer to search his home pursuant to 

a warrant. On interlocutory appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court 

concluded that the police officers were acting within the scope of 

their authority. State v. Galloway, 652 P.2d 673, 675 (Kan. 

1982). Because the scope of authority of a campus police officer 

is an issue of state law, see Rusillo v. Scarborough, 935 F.2d 

1167, 1172 (10th Cir. 1991) (scope of official's authority a 

matter of state law), we are bound by the state court's decision. 

Petitioner's claim of an illegal search therefore has no merit. 

Petitioner next complains that he was deprived of his right 

against double jeopardy. After reviewing the record and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3125 Document: 010110084291 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 2 
petitioner's argument, we are satisfied with the district court's 

finding of fact and conclusion of law: 

Petitioner filed a motion to sever the charges, and 

on October 19, 1981, the trial court granted the motion 

and entered the order to sever. That same day the state 

filed its notice of interlocutory appeal from the trial 

court's order which suppressed evidence in the case. 

Petitioner claims the notice of appeal suspended the 

trial court's jurisdiction to act in the criminal proceeding, and thus the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the severance order. The record clearly 

shows the severance order was entered prior to the 

notice of appeal. Although both were filed the same 

day, the severance order was filed shortly after 3:00 

P.M. [Dist. Ct. record vol. 2, at 119, (No. 82-54304-

S)], and the notice of appeal was filed about 3:45 P.M. 

[Dist. Ct. record vol. 1, at 114, (No. 82-54304S)]. The 

record, therefore, does not support petitioner's 

argument and the court finds no merit to petitioner's 

second claim. 

Galloway v. Roberts, No. 90-3148-S, 1991 WL 47404 (unpubl.) slip 

op. at 4 (D. Kan. March 19, 1991). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3125 Document: 010110084291 Date Filed: 09/05/1991 Page: 3