Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07066/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07066-0/pdf.json

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

---

( 

( 

,, 

\ l 

l 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ FI L<ill ·D· _ 

\UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOE JOHNSON, J~,-•/l 

_v. 

. (' 

Petitioner-Appellant 

R. MICHAEL '•(;ODY, Warden; THE 

ATTORNEY GEN~RAL OF THE STATE 

OF OKLAHOMA, \. 

' Respondent~\-Appelles. \ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

. ) 

)_ 

l~OV 15 1991 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-7066 

(D.C. No. 89-630-S) 

(E. Dist. Okla.) 

J _______________ _ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, C~,ilef Judge,' SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determin~d 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. 

Joe Johnson, Jr. appeals the district court's denial of his 

request for habeas>corpus relief. We-grant him leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and his motion for a certificate of probable 

cause. We affirm the denial of his petition. 

*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: 91-7066 Document: 010110097365 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Johnson was convicted in October 1977 of the murder of 

Woody Streater. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He 

appealed his conviction to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 

and the conviction was affirmed. Johnson v. State of Oklahoma, 

597 P.2d 340 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). His subsequent request for 

post-conviction relief was denied by the trial court, and denial 

was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Mr. Johnson then 

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by 

the district court for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

At this point, Mr. Johnson had two choices. He could "avoid 

dismissal of his petition by amending the petition to delete the 

unexhausted claims. However, if the petitioner elects to amend 

his petition, he risks forfeiting any future consideration of the 

unexhausted issues under the successive petition .doctrine." Smith 

v. Atkins, 678 F.2d 883, 884 (10th Cir. 1982). Mr. Johnson could 

also have chosen to return to state court and litigate his 

unexhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 514 (1982). 

Here, Mr. Johnson evidently chose to amend. The Magistrate Judge 

described his second petition as follows: "The instant petition 

is apparently an amended petition ... omitting the unexhausted 

claims." Rec., doc. 12. 

The petition challenged the propriety of his confinement. 

Johnson argued (1) denial of due process by suppression of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7066 Document: 010110097365 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 2 
exculpatory evidence, (2) denial of due process by use of perjured 

testimony, (3) denial of right to appellate counsel. See Rec., 

doc. 18. The omitted claims included his contention that the 

preliminary hearing judge was not impartial, and that the trial 

judge and jury were not impartial. Compare Rec., doc. 12 with 

1 Rec . , doc • 18 . 

On March 22, 1991, the United States Magistrate Judge filed 

Findings and Recommendations in this case, urging that the 

district court dismiss the petition. Rec., doc. 18. On April 12, 

1991, Mr. Johnson filed objections, renewing his allegation that 

the preliminary hearing judge, Earl A. Davis, was not impartial 

because he was related by marriage to the murder victim. The 

district court adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings and denied 

Mr. Johnson's exceptions and objections. Rec., doc. 25. The 

district court did not specifically address Mr. Johnson's 

arguments. 

On appeal, Mr. Johnson asserts all of the claims raised below 

and reasserts with vigor the claim that the preliminary hearing 

judge's relation to the victim was a violation of his 

constitutional rights. We accept the district court's conclusion 

1 "Petitioner has attached additional issues concerning the 

propriety of the preliminary hearing judge, the trial judge and 

the jurors. These issues are not contained within the body of the 

petition and are not briefed. Apparently these issues have been 

abandoned. 11 Rec . , doc . 18 . 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-7066 Document: 010110097365 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 3 
( 

that this question was not raised by the prisoner's petition. As 

a result, it is not properly before this court. Moreover, even if 

it were properly raised, it does not appear that Mr. Johnson's 

claim of bias against the preliminary hearing judge raises a 

colorable federal issue. Assuming Mr. Johnson's allegations to be 

true, he was convicted at a trial by jury, presided over by a 

judge not related to the victim. It is on the basis of this 

conviction that Mr. Johnson is presently incarcerated. The 

preliminary hearing judge's relation to the victim has little to 

do with Mr. Johnson's present situation. 

Mr. Johnson's remaining claims were all considered on the 

merits and rejected by the state courts in denying his request for 

state post-conviction relief. 2 Thus, to the extent these claims 

present factual issues, they are entitled to a presumption of 

correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1988). Our review of the 

record reveals no reason to conclude that the presumption is not 

applicable here. Further, upon de novo review of the legal issues 

presented, we conclude that Mr. Johnson is not being held in 

violation of his constitutional rights. 

2 In his petition 

presented the claims 

that the trial judge 

also resolved on the 

for state post-conviction relief, Mr. Johnson 

he omitted in his federal petition, alleging 

and the jury were biased. These claims were 

merits adversely to Mr. Johnson. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-7066 Document: 010110097365 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 4 
\ ( 

We AFFIRM the decision of the district court. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7066 Document: 010110097365 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 5