Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01184/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01184-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

' 

FILED ~ United Stat"'..s C<:1}rt ~f Ap~L Tent~ C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 3 0 1991 

----------ROBERTL.HOECKER 

RAYMOND LLOYD BATES, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

MARK GUNTER; MARK MCKINNA; 

GALE A. NORTON, Attorney 

General for the State of 

Colorado, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No. 91-1184 

(D.C. No. 90-5-2052) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

Mr. Bates appeals prose the dismissal of his petition for 

habeas corpus relief. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1184 Document: 010110092991 Date Filed: 10/30/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Bates entered guilty pleas to three counts of firstdegree arson pursuant to a plea bargain and was sentenced in state 

court. Mr. Bates apparently then asked for permission to withdraw 

his plea. The basis for this motion to withdraw was the guilty 

plea "was due to duress The sole evidence was 3rd party 

evidence and was involuntary, unintelligent." The trial court 

denied Defendant's motion. The complaint states this action was 

appealed. 

Mr. Bates then filed his prose petition for habeas relief 

with the United States District Court. In this complaint Mr. 

Bates asserts he filed a grievance against his defense counsel 

which is being investigated. Mr. Bates also apparently asserts he 

was unfairly denied a change of venue necessary because of media 

prejudice. He alleges defects in his guilty plea and asserts he 

did attempt to raise these issues in state court, but concluded it 

was useless to continue as his requests would be denied. 

The district court dismissed the habeas corpus petition 

holding that Mr. Bates's claims relating to his counsel and media 

coverage had not been presented to the state courts. In short, 

the district court concluded Mr. Bates failed to show his petition 

contained only exhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy. 455 U.S. 509 

(1982). 

In his prose appeal to this court, Mr. Bates argues: (1) 

his guilty pleas in state court were involuntarily entered; (2) he 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1184 Document: 010110092991 Date Filed: 10/30/1991 Page: 2 
has a right to a jury trial; (3) his sentence was unlawful; and 

(4) "whether the Colo. Supreme ruled or not is immaterial. 

It is clear Mr. Bates misperceives applicable law. When a 

person desires to attack the constitutional validity of his state 

conviction in federal court, he must first present all his issues 

to a state court. The fact that Mr. Bates may feel it useless 

based upon his assumption the state courts will rule against him 

is not sufficient reason to excuse him from first raising his 

contentions in state court. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and the 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1184 Document: 010110092991 Date Filed: 10/30/1991 Page: 3