Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06022/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06022-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JIMMY PHILLIPS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FI LED 

United Star.es Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir:.u.i: 

AUG 151989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-6022 

STEPHEN KAISER, Warden; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) (D.C. No. CIV-88-1898-R) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit 

Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Jimmy Phillips (Phillips) appearing prose, appeals from the 

district court's Memorandum Opinion, attached hereto, and Judgment 

of December 30, 1988, denying his 28 u.s.c. § 2254 Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus. The appeal raises one issue as ground for 

* 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: 89-6022 Document: 01019975706 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 1 
relief, i.e., whether a revoked one-year suspended sentence was 

improperly used to enhance Oklahoma state court sentences he is 

presently serving. 

Phillips received a one-year suspended sentence following 

Oklahoma state court conviction on June 17, 1970. Subsequently, 

Phillips was convicted of other offenses in Oklahoma state court 

and while his appeal was pending from the sentence imposed 

thereon, his suspended sentence was revoked on October 2, 1970. 

Phillips was subsequently convicted of the offenses he is 

presently incarcerated for following his guilty pleas on January 

20, 1988. The revocation of his suspended sentence was used to 

enhance that conviction. 

Phillips appealed the revocation order, contending that the 

suspended sentence could not be revoked pending his appeal from 

the underlying conviction. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

affirmed the order of revocation. Phillips v. State, 483 P. 2d 

759 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971). Subsequently, in Kern v. State, 521 

P. 2d 412 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974) the court held that a revocation 

judgment would not be legally effective to enhance a subsequent 

conviction unless the revocation order was entered after the 

underlying conviction had become final. The Kern court stated 

that the underlying conviction "[m]ust be a final judgment and 

sentence, one unappealed from within the time prescribed for 

direct appeal or final disposition made and entered by the 

appellate court if direct appeal has been perfected." Id. at 415. 

Significantly, however, the court further held that its Kern 

holding would be applied ''prospectively" only. Id. Thus, Kern 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6022 Document: 01019975706 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 2 
would have no application here inasmuch as the sentences for which 

Phillips is presently incarcerated were entered on January 20, 

1988. 

We AFFIRM substantially for the reasons set forth in the 

district court's Memorandum Opinion of December 30, 1988, which is 

attached hereto. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6022 Document: 01019975706 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 3 
JIMMY L. 

v. 

STEPHEN 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

PHILLIPS, ) 

Petitioner, ) l'(DEPUTI ) 

) 

) CIV-88-1898-R 

) 

) 

KAISER, ) 

Respondent. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The Petitioner is incarcerated within the Oklahoma Department of Corrections upon his pleas of guilty and resultant 

judgments which were entered in the District Court of Oklahoma 

County, Oklahoma. (Case Nos. CRF 87-7171, CRF 88-19). The 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the Petitioner 

attacks a conviction that was utilized to enhance the sentences 

presently being served. (Case No. CRF 70-1272, District Court of 

Oklahoma County, Oklahoma). Although the sentence in CRF 70-1272 

has been completely discharged, the Respondent does not present 

facts or circumstances that would operate to deprive the Court of 

jurisdiction by virtue of the fact the Petitioner is not II in 

custody" of the challenged conviction that only enhances the 

current sentence of incarceration. 28 u.s.c. Section 2241(c) (3); 

21 o.s. 1981, Section 51; Rutledge v, Sunderland. 671 F.2d 377, 

381-382 (10th Cir. 1982). 

The material facts supporting the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus under 28 u.s.c. Section 2254 are not disputed. The 

\ 1-i 

\ ./ 

Appellate Case: 89-6022 Document: 01019975706 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 4 
challenged conViiction, CRF 70-1272, was entered on a plea of 

guilty to the offense of grand larceny and resulted in a 1-year 

suspended sentence in the District Court of Oklahoma County, 

Oklahoma on June 17, 1970. A subsequent conviction in the 

District Court of Oklahoma County Case No. CRF 70-2375 provided 

the basis for revocation of the suspended sentence in CRF 70-1272 

on October 2, 1970. The Petitioner appealed the revocation order 

urging that the suspended sentence could not be validly revoked 

pending an appeal of the conviction that was the basis for the 

revocation. The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of 

Oklahoma affirmed the order of revocation. Phillips v, State. 

483 P.2d 759 (Okl.Cr. 1971). A post-conviction attack under 22 

o.s. 1981 Sections 1080 et seq. raising this issue was determined 

to be procedurally barred by the lower and appellate courts of 

the State of Oklahoma. Case No. PC 88-423, Jimmy L. Phillips v. 

Oklahoma County District Court and the state of Oklahoma, Respondents, Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. 

Therefore, the Court finds that state remedies have been exhausted in accordance with 28 u.s.c. Section 2254(b)(c). Martinez v. 

Romero, 640 F.2d 1151 (10th Cir. 1981). 

Both the Petitioner and the Respondent argue that the 

decision in Kern y, State, 521 P.2d 412 (Okl.Cr. 1974) is determinative of the claim made herein. The opinion in Kern v. State, 

supra, stated that for a conviction to revoke or accelerate a 

sentence "it must be a final judgment and sentence, one 

unappealed from within the time prescribed for di~ect appeal or 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6022 Document: 01019975706 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 5 
-final disposit,ion made and entered by the appellate court if 

' direct appeal has been perfected." .I.g. at 415. Although the 

~ case is_relevant this language is not binding herein because 

of a further crucial finding by the court. The opinion specifically considered Phillips v, State, supra, and other cases of 

similar import in recognition of an apparent conflict in the 

cases. Thereupon, the court took no action regarding these 

decisions, and further stated that the ~ opinion would be 

applied "prospectively" rendering it inapplicable herein. Jg. at 

415. 

Thus, it appears that the state courts have fully and fairly 

considered the Petitioner's claim and that there are no circumstances that would compel this Court to deviate from the presumpti vely correct state court determinations. 28 U. s. c. Section 

2254(d); Sumner y, Mata, 449 u.s. 539 (1981); Sumner v. Mata, 455 

U.S. 591 (1982). 

Moreover, it is axiomatic that federal courts may intervene 

in state judicial process only to correct wrongs of constitutional dimension. Engle v, Isaac, 456 u.s. 101, 126-128 (1982). The 

federal habeas corpus action does not serve as the vehicle for 

another appellate review of an issue that is a state law question 

which has been properly reviewed by the highest state court 

rendering the state court judgment binding on the federal court, 

sans constitutional deprivations. Brown y, Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 

167 (1977); Garner v. Louisiana, 368 u.s. 157, 169 (1961). 

Interpretation of the state laws pertaining to revocation of 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6022 Document: 01019975706 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 6 
sentences is a , matter that is peculiarly within the state court 

- expertise, the Court finding there are no violations of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection that 

justify federal intervention under the claim presented by the 

Petitioner. Under these circumstances, any con fl lets in state 

law analysis are not of concern to the federal habeas action 

since they do not give rise to a justiciable reason for the Court 

to determine that there has been a denial of rights protected by 

the constitution. Gryger v, Burk, 334 u.s. 728, 731 (1948); 

Perkins v, Peyton. 369 F.2d 590, 592 (4th Cir. 1966). 

Accordingly, judgment will issue dismissing the Petition for 

a Writ of Habeas Corpus and the claims asserted therein. The 

Clerk's records reveal that the Petitioner is a prolific litigant 

in this Court having unsuccessfully filed more than 20 habeas 

corpus and civil rights actions, that there is no nonfrivolous 

issue raised in good faith, and an appeal in forma pauperis at 

the expense of the United states should not be and is not approved by this Court. Further, a Certificate of Probable Cause 

will not issue and is hereby denied in view of the lack of 

substantial merit to the claims presented. Rules 22, 24, Fed. R. 

App. P., 20 u.s.c.A. 

It is so ORDERED this day of December, 1988. 

~E-L-~----.-----

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6022 Document: 01019975706 Date Filed: 08/15/1989 Page: 7