Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05201/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Champion
Appellee
Skip L. Otto
Appellant
State of Oklahoma
Appellee

Document Text:

r 

.. 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 2 5 1990 

-----------OBERT L. HOECKER 

SKIP L. OTTO, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. No. 89-5201 

(D.C. No. 88-C-587-E) 

RON CHAMPION, Warden; and 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges. ** 

Petitioner-appellant, Skip Otto, prose, seeks to appeal the 

district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 u.s.c. S 2254. Otto pled guilty in Oklahoma state 

court to second degree murder. Originally, the trial court 

sentenced Otto under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, S 353 (West 1969·) _ 

to an indeterminate term of between forty-five years and life. 

For reasons unimportant here, see rec. vol. I at doc. 1, attach., 

* 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. 

** 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. The cause therefore is submitted 

without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-5201 Document: 010110064865 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 1 
{ 

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that§ 353 was 

inapplicable to second degree murder. Accordingly, Otto's 

sentence was modified to forty-five years imprisonment in 

accordance with his plea agreement and Okla. Stat. Ann. tit 21, 

§ 701.9(B) (West 1983) (setting punishment for second degree 

murder at between ten years and life). Otto's sole argument in 

the district court and on appeal is that his forty-five year 

sentence deprives him of equal protection and due process of law 

because other convicts in similar circumstances have had their 

sentences ~educed to the statutory minimum of ten years. 

Now before the court is Otto's motion for a certificate of 

probable cause so that he may proceed with his appeal. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253, Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The district court denied Otto a 

certificate. In Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983), 

the Supreme Court established the standard for the issuance of a 

certificate of probable cause: "[P)robable cause requires 

something more than the absence of frivolity .... [A] 

certificate or probable cause requires petitioner to make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a federal right." Having 

carefully reviewed the record in this matter, we conclude that 

Otto has not made the required showing for the issuance of a 

certificate. 

Otto presents nothing more than a challenge to a sentence 

falling within the state's statutory limits. Wide discretion is 

accorded a state court's sentencing decision. A challenge to that 

decision is constitutionally cognizable under the fourteenth 

amendment only where the petitioner shows that the sentence 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5201 Document: 010110064865 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 2 
imposed (1) exceeds the statutory limits, (2) is wholly 

unauthorized by law, (3) is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of 

discretion, or (4) is devoid of discretion. Haynes v. Butler, 825 

F.2d 921, 923-24 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1014 

(1988). Otto's reference to similar defendants who received 

lesser sentences within the statutory· limits is insufficient to 

establish a violation of equal protection or due process of law. 

Cf. Simmons v. United States, 230 F.2d 73, 74 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 351 U.S. 927 (1956) (petitioner's claim that he unlawfully 

received greater sentence than codefendant unreviewable on 

collateral attack). 

Otto's reliance on Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 (1980) is 

misplaced. In that case, the defendant was entitled to have his 

sentence fixed by a jury. Thus, the defendant's forty-year 

sentence under an unconstitutional statute could not stand where 

the jurors should have been instructed that they could impose any 

sentence of more than ten years. In contrast, Otto waived any 

right he had to a jury trial and sentence by pleading guilty. 

Otto agreed to a minimum forty-five year sentence in his guilty 

plea. The Oklahoma state court did not err in modifying Otto's 

sentence to that which he agreed. 

Accordingly, the motion for a certificate of probable cause 

in DENIED and the appeal DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5201 Document: 010110064865 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 3