Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01332/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01332-1/pdf.json

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

---

.. FILED 

United States Court of .Appeals 

T""rith GrCt1it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 8 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DENNIS REED GRENEMYER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

FRANK GUNTER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1332 

(D.C. No. 90-B-1296) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

To amend the Order and Judgment filed on February 28, 1990, 

the mandate is hereby recalled. 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. 

Petitioner-appellant Dennis Grenemyer appeals a district 

court order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus 

seeking release from custody pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254. On 

appeal, Grenemyer argues the district court erred in finding he 

had not exhausted available state remedies before petitioning 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: 90-1332 Document: 010110031880 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 1 
a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. In a motion for sanctions filed after the appeal, Grenemyer argues the respondentsappellees and their counsel of record intentionally misrepresented 

to the district court about the availability of a Sexual Offender 

Treatment Program (SOTP) at the Fredmont Correctional Facility in 

Canon City, Colorado. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. § 

1291 and remand with instructions to the district court. 

Grenemyer presently is incarcerated at Fredmont for sexually 

assaulting a child under the age of fifteen. His sentence of four 

years' imprisonment and one year of parole began December 22, 

1988. 

Grenemeyer's petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges four 

grounds for release from state custody: 

(1) He argues the Colorado statute disallowing the admission 

of evidence of mistake in cases when a victim of sexual assault is 

below age fifteen, Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 18-3-406 (1986), is 

unconstitutional. According to the petition, the application of 

the statute deprived Grenemyer of a fair trial and the right to 

confront witnesses against him. 

(2) Grenemyer argues the mittimus erroneously listed a 

conviction for violation of the wrong statute and was dated March 

21, 1986. Because four years had passed and the mittimus had not 

been amended, Grenemyer contends his continued incarceration is 

illegal. 

(3) According to Grenemyer's petition, the conviction was 

obtained as a result of perjured evidence used knowingly and 

intentionally by the prosecutor. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1332 Document: 010110031880 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 2 
(4) Grenemyer contends the Colorado State Parole Board 

deprived him of the right to mandatory parole in deciding on July 

9, 1990 to deny parole so he could serve more time in a Department 

of Corrections Facility, continue correctional treatment, and 

participate in SOTP. He also contends that if parole for sex offenders is not mandatory but rather discretionary, then this 

exception to mandatory parole violates the equal protection clause 

of the fourteenth amendment. Grenemyer asserts SOTP is not presently available to Grenemyer at Fredmont. Finally, Grenemyer 

contends he was denied the right to a speedy trial, and the 

prosecution failed to disclose evidence about a prior acquittal 

involving the same victim. 

A habeas corpus petitioner must exhaust available state 

remedies before seeking federal court intervention. 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2254(b). In interpreting the exhaustion rule in section 2254, 

the Supreme Court has held that a district court must dismiss a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus containing any claim that has 

not been exhausted in state court. Rose~ Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 

510 (1982). The Court in Rose explained that a petitioner then 

has the choice of returning to state court to exhaust his claims 

or resubmitting the petition so it presents only exhausted claims. 

Id. However, the Court pointed out that a prisoner who decides to 

resubmit exhausted claims and set aside unexhausted claims will 

risk dismissal of subsequent federal habeas petitions under the 

principle of abuse of the writ. Id. at 521; see 28 u.s.c. § 2254 

Rule 9(b). 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1332 Document: 010110031880 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 3 
JI I • -

Grenemyer concedes the parole issue contained in ground four 

was not presented in state court, but he contends it is properly 

before the court in a habeas proceeding as a federal question. We 

disagree. If parole for sex offenders is mandatory under Colorado 

Revised Statutes§ 16-11-310 as Grenemyer asserts, then the Parole 

Board's failure to grant parole may be remedied in a state habeas 

proceeding. See Thiret Y..!.. Kautzky, 792 P.2d 801, 808 (Colo. 

1990). If parole is discretionary for individuals convicted of 

sexual assault on a child as the Colorado Supreme Court recently 

has held, see id. at 807, then Grenemyer must exhaust the state 

post-conviction remedy under Rule 35(c)(2) of the Colorado Rules 

of Criminal Procedure before challenging the constitutionality of 

this scheme of discretionary parole in federal court. Because 

Grenemyer has not sought state review by means of a petition for 

habeas corpus or a Rule 35 motion, we hold he has not exhausted 

available state remedies on all claims listed in the petition. 

Grenemyer contends in his motion for sanctions that the 

respondents' counsel signed a Show Cause Response in violation of 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We REMAND to the 

district court with instructions to determine whether Rule 11 

sanctions are appropriate in this case and to dismiss the petition 

for failure to exhaust state remedies on all the claims. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1332 Document: 010110031880 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 4