Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01341/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01341-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSJnited Scates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci!"cuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES RUSSELL GRAY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JERRY SILVA; DUANE L. WOODARD, 

Attorney General, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JUN 2 ° 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1341 

(D.C. No. 90-S-503) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on petitioner Charles Russell 

Gray's application for a certificate of probable cause. 

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. S 2254, challenging his state court convictions of theft of 

a motor vehicle and escape from custody. He challenges the theft 

conviction on the ground that the Colorado courts did not have 

jurisdiction because the crime, if it occurred at all, was committed in California. Petitioner then argues that he could not be 

* 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: 90-1341 Document: 010110128195 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 1 
guilty of the escape crime because at the time of his escape, he 

was serving time for an invalid conviction. 

The district court outlined the procedural history of 

petitioner's attempts to raise this issue and dismissed the action 

for failure to exhaust state remedies. The court ruled that the 

federal constitutional issues had not been raised in state court, 

which is a prerequisite to federal court consideration. See 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76 (1971). After examining 

the record, we find that the petitioner did exhaust state 

remedies. Petitioner collaterally attacked his convictions 

through separate writs of habeas corpus to the Colorado district 

and supreme courts. His petitions raised several constitutional 

issues relating to Colorado's jurisdiction to convict him of the 

crimes charged. Although his petition to the Colorado Supreme 

Court may have been procedurally defective, the Court did consider 

petitioner's arguments before denying the writ. Therefore, 

petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement of 28 u.s.c. § 

2254(b) and Picard. 

We conclude, however, that petitioner has failed to make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a federal right necessary for 

the issuance of a certificate of probable cause under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2253. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). 

Colorado's criminal jurisdiction statute authorizes prosecution if 

a defendant's conduct within the state constitutes an element of 

the charged offense. See Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 18-1-201. In the 

instant case, petitioner's control over the vehicle in Colorado is 

an element of the crime of vehicle theft. Accordingly, Colorado's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1341 Document: 010110128195 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 2 
exercise of jurisdiction was proper, see State v. Martinez, 543 

P.2d 1290, 1292 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975), and denied petitioner no 

federal right. Furthermore, because petitioner's conviction is 

valid, he cannot prevail on his challenge to his escape conviction. 

Petitioner's application for a certificate of probable cause 

is denied. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1341 Document: 010110128195 Date Filed: 06/26/1991 Page: 3