Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05207/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05207-0/pdf.json

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

---

"' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ADEMOLA MICHAEL OGUNLEYE, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

. FILED 

Uoned Stares Co~rt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 2 4 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

v. ) 

) 

No. 89-5207 

(D.C. No. 87-C-560-C) 

(N. Dist. Okla.) 

STEVE HARGETT; ATTORNEY GENERAL ) 

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. 

Petitioner Ademola Michael Ogunleye appeals the December 5, 

1989, order of the district court declaring moot petitioner's 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. 

*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: 89-5207 Document: 010110041557 Date Filed: 08/24/1990 Page: 1 
..,. 

Petitioner claims that he was unconstitutionally deprived of 

his right to appeal his state court conviction for shoplifting. 

After an evidentiary hearing at which the state confessed the 

error, the magistrate recommended that petitioner be released 

because he had already served over half of his four-year sentence 

and because the magistrate could find no authority for a federal 

habeas court to order the reinstatement of a state appeal. 

Instead of following the magistrate's recommendation, however, the 

district court remanded the case to state court for processing of 

a new petition for state post-conviction relief. 

On August 1, 1989, the state district court granted 

petitioner's application for post-conviction relief. In so doing, 

that court stated: "The petitioner should be allowed to appeal 

out of time due to petitioner's VIII allegation or (sic) error." 

Order Granting Application for Post-Conviction Relief, Tulsa 

County District Court at 2 (Aug. 1, 1989). Petitioner's 

allegation number VIII related to the deprivation of his appeal. 

Id. 

On December 5, 1989, the federal district court dismissed 

this action as moot because petitioner was released from custody 

on the state charges. On appeal, petitioner argues that this 

habeas action is not moot because he is being held by the INS for 

deportation because of the state conviction in question. However, 

petitioner has been granted total relief he has been released 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5207 Document: 010110041557 Date Filed: 08/24/1990 Page: 2 
-. 

from state custody and he has been granted the right in state 

court to appeal the conviction out of time. Presumably, he will 

not be deported on the state conviction until his appeal has been 

finally determined. In any event, any issue regarding INS custody 

is not before the court in this habeas action. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-5207 Document: 010110041557 Date Filed: 08/24/1990 Page: 3