Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02093/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dareld Kerby
Appellee
Jimmie Raye Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States Coore of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

SEP 13 1990 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JIMMIE RAYE WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DARELD KERBY, Warden, CNMCF, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-2093 

) (D.C. No. 88-1260-JP) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner Jimmie Raye Williams appeals the district court's 

denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. In New Mexico state court, Williams pleaded 

guilty to one count of attempted criminal sexual penetration (CSP) 

* 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: 89-2093 Document: 010110042159 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 1 
' 

in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann.§ 30-28-l(A) (1978). On appeal, 

Williams asserts he was coerced into pleading guilty in violation 

of his fifth and fourteenth amendment rights. We affirm. 

Williams was originally charged with first degree CSP based 

on allegations that he sexually assaulted his daughter. See N.M. 

Stat. Ann. § 30-9-ll(A)(l) (1953). He pleaded guilty to the 

lesser charge of attempted CSP and was sentenced to a term of nine 

years' imprisonment, which was enhanced by three years for a total 

incarceration period of twelve years. See N.M. Stat. Ann. 

§ 31-18-15.1 (1978). A conviction for first degree CSP could have 

meant a prison term of eighteen to twenty-four years. N.M. Stat. 

Ann.§§ 31-18-15(A)l, 15.1 (1978). 

Williams now argues he was coerced into pleading guilty 

because he was "threatened" with the twenty-four year 

incarceration period for first degree CSP. He asserts that he 

should have been charged with incest under N.M. Stat. Ann. 

§ 30-10-3 (1953), rather than first degree CSP, because it is the 

more specific crime. In New Mexico, incest . is a third degree 

felony subject to a maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment. 

Williams asserts, in essence, that the prosecutor coerced him into 

pleading guilty to a higher degree felony than he was guilty of, 

resulting in fifth and fourteenth amendment violations. 

In order to be constitutional, a guilty plea must be both 

knowing and voluntary. See Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 508 

(1984). A plea becomes involuntary and therefore violates due 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2093 Document: 010110042159 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 2 
.. 

process if it was coerced. See Worthen v. Meachum, 842 F.2d 1179, 

1185 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Court stated: 

In Brady v. United States, the Supreme 

A plea of guilty entered by one fully aware of the 

direct consequences, including the actual value of any 

commitments made to him by the court, prosecutor, or his 

own counsel, must stand unless induced by threats (or 

promises to discontinue improper harassment), 

misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or 

unfulfillable promises), or perhaps by promises that are 

by their nature improper as having no proper 

relationship to the prosecutor's business (~, 

bribes). 

397 U.S. 742, 755 (quoting Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571, 

572 n.2 (5th Cir. 1957)(en bane), rev'd on other grounds, 356 U.S. 

26 (1958)). 

Williams' only contention regarding coercion is that he was 

"threatened" with the punishment of a longer incarceration. This 

argument falls well below the standard enunciated above. Williams 

does not argue that duress was involved or that he was threatened 

in any concrete manner. He does not allege his plea was 

involuntary when made or that the district attorney lacked 

probable cause to charge him with first degree CSP. 

Moreover, Williams' underlying theory is fatally flawed. He 

asserts that incest, as the more specific charge, is applicable to 

his conduct. In New Mexico, a specific crime applies over a 

general one if the two statutes proscribe the same offense. See 

State v. Gutierrez, 541 P.2d 628, 629 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). 

However, incest and first degree CSP are two distinct crimes and 

do not proscribe the same offense. The New Mexico Supreme Court 

recently addressed this very issue. It stated: 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2093 Document: 010110042159 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 3 
The flaw in the defendant's argument rests in his 

assertion that both statutes condemn the same offense. 

Criminal sexual penetration and incest have different 

elements and are distinct crimes even though one offense 

can occur simultaneously with the commission of the 

other. 

State v. Hargrove, 771 P.2d 166, 171 (N.M. 1989)(citations 

omitted). The same flaw is present in this case. Because CSP and 

incest are distinct crimes, the state may charge a defendant with 

one or both offenses. As a consequence, Williams' 

underlying argument fails and his habeas petition does not assert 

claims of a constitutional dimension. 

The order of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2093 Document: 010110042159 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 4