Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07026/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Willie Leon Murphy
Appellant
State of Oklahoma
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 2 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

WILLIE LEON MURPHY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. No. 92-7026 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D. C. No. 91-254-S) 

( E • D. Okla. ) 

ORDER ARD JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Murphy, an Oklahoma inmate, appeals the judgment 

dismissing his petition for habeas relief. We grant Mr. Murphy 

permission to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7026 Document: 010110287331 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Murphy was tried and convicted in state court for the 

Oklahoma offence of Indecent Exposure After Former Conviction of 

Two or More Felonies. The court sentenced Mr. Murphy to 150 

years. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

held the sentence excessive and modified it to fifty years. 

Mr. Murphy unsuccessfully sought pro se post conviction 

relief in the state court. The state court held that twelve of 

the fourteen issues raised by Mr. Murphy were procedurally barred 

as they could have been raised in his direct appeal but were not. 

The state court held the remaining two issues (the Oklahoma Court 

of Criminal Appeals failed to consider whether Mr. Murphy was 

prejudiced by the introduction into evidence of the possibility of 

parole and failure of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to 

grant his petition for rehearing) lacked merit. 

Mr. Murphy then filed his prose petition for habeas relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court. 

This petition and Mr. Murphy's subsequent pleadings demonstrate 

something less than a clear, plain and simple statement showing 

Mr. Murphy is entitled to relief. For example, Mr. Murphy alleged 

a "failure to: executer the issue whether or, appellant would be 

denied a fair trial because of the rearainging of the banch,s. 

[Sic.]" Nevertheless, a fair reading of Mr. Murphy's petition 

would reveal he complains of various errors by the state trial 

court, ineffective assistance of counsel, an excessive sentence, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7026 Document: 010110287331 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 2
and also that a constitutionally invalid prior conviction was used 

to enhance his present sentence. The district court found no 

merit to any of Mr. Murphy's contentions and dismissed the 

petition. 

Mr. Murphy has failed to make a showing that he was deprived 

effective assistance of counsel. For Mr. Murphy to prevail on 

this issue he must show his counsel's performance was substandard 

and that this substandard performance resulted in his conviction. 

Allegations that an exhibit was admitted over his counsel's 

objection and that his counsel failed to raise the defense of 

entrapment (the evidence showed Mr. Murphy exposed himself to a 

court reporter in her office in the court house) fail to show Mr. 

Murphy's counsel was substandard. 

Mr. Murphy's sentence, while quite lengthy, is not 

constitutionally excessive. Mr. Murphy was charged under 

Oklahoma's habitual offender statute. The minimum punishment 

under Oklahoma law is ten years, and Oklahoma provides no maximum 

sentence. Where the sentence imposed is within the maximum 

provided by law, there is no basis for habeas relief. 

United States, 403 F.2d 71, 73 (10th Cir. 1968). 

Cooper v. 

The government argues that because Mr. Murphy's prior 

sentence has fully expired, the collateral consequences of that 

conviction are not sufficient to render Mr. Murphy "in custody" 

under Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989). We need not address 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-7026 Document: 010110287331 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 3
this argument, however, because the conviction of which Mr. Murphy 

complains was upheld by this court in a prior federal habeas case. 

See No. 87-1126 wherein Mr. Murphy previously attacked the 

validity of this prior state court conviction and we upheld the 

constitutional validity of this conviction. 

As to Mr. Murphy's remaining claims of error, the district 

court was correct. Once a state court has rested its decision 

squarely upon Mr. Murphy's failure to raise these issues in a 

direct appeal, we must honor the state court's decision unless Mr. 

Murphy makes a showing that the failure to raise these issues was 

caused by something beyond his control and that these errors 

caused him to be convicted or that Mr . Murphy was actually 

innocent of the charges. Mr. Murphy has failed to show either 

cause and prejudice or probable innocence. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-7026 Document: 010110287331 Date Filed: 08/25/1992 Page: 4