Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06151/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Kaiser
Appellee
Ronald Ray Reid
Appellant

Document Text:

FI. 1 -

Upiood ~ .i-~ Co~. ~l T--""' 1.. .. •• UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS · 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG O "i' 1992 

-I 

~~1' I • HOEC _"R_,. 

Clerk 

RONALD RAY REID, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN KAISER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-6151 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 92-CV-76) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Ronald Ray Reid appeals the denial of his petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also asks us 

to grant his application for a certificate of probable cause, 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

* 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: 92-6151 Document: 010110276692 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 1
Following the acceptance of his guilty plea in Oklahoma 

County District Court, Reid was sentenced to concurrent sentences 

of twenty-five years in jail on eighteen separate counts. Reid 

raised numerous issues in his habeas petition below, but asserts 

only one on appeal: that he was denied the effective assistance 

of counsel during his state court guilty plea proceeding, in 

violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, when his 

attorney stipulated that Reid had been convicted of three prior 

felonies in Texas in 1986 and 1987. As a result of those prior 

offenses, Reid received an enhanced sentence pursuant to Okla. 

Stat. tit. 21, § 51 (1981). 

To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, 

petitioner must satisfy the two part test established in 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Reid must show 

both that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's inadequacies, 

the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Tapia 

v. Tansy, 926 F.2d 1554, 1564 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 s. 

Ct. 115 (1991). The Strickland test also applies to challenges of 

guilty pleas. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). 

Initially, the court must determine if a counseled guilty plea is 

based on advice which "[is] within the range of competence 

demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." Id. at 56. The second 

part of the Strickland test is satisfied if "there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would 

not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to 

trial." Id. at 59. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6151 Document: 010110276692 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 2
Reid premises his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on 

the proposition that an attorney must investigate the validity of 

prior convictions when those prior convictions can result in the 

application of an enhanced sentence. See,~, Jones v. 

Lockhart, 851 F.2d 1115, 1116-17 (8th Cir. 1988). Counsel has a 

duty to make reasonable investigation or to make a reasonable 

decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. 

Strickland, at 691. 

Here, that inquiry was conducted on the record by the state 

court judge. Reid admitted his involvement in the three Texas 

felonies and to the facts necessary for the application of the 

Oklahoma statute enhancing his sentence. Oklahoma's Resp. to Pet. 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex.Fat 12-15. We agree with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that "[Reid] has not alleged that he 

would not have pleaded guilty had counsel investigated his prior 

felony convictions, and there is no reasonable probability that, 

had counsel conducted such an investigation, the Petitioner would 

not have pled guilty and would have proceeded to trial." Findings 

and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge at 9-10. 

"'[A] certificate of probable cause requires petitioner to 

make a "substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right."'" 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983) (quotation omitted). 

In order to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal 

right, a petitioner who was denied relief in a district court 

"'must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of 

reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are "adequate to deserve encouragement 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6151 Document: 010110276692 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 3
to proceed further."'" Lozada v. Deeds, 111 S. Ct. 860 (1991) 

(quotation omitted). Reid has failed to make this substantial 

showing. 

Accordingly, we DENY Reid's application for certificate of 

probable cause and DISMISS his complaint for substantially the 

same reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation and the district court's Order affirming that 

Report and Recommendation. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6151 Document: 010110276692 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 4