Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07029/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Appellee
Mike Parsons
Appellee
Elbert Harrison Vick
Appellant

Document Text:

f 

FILED United Stat9s Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 2 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ELBERT HARRISON VICK, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

MIKE PARSONS, Warden, and 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-7029 

(D.C. No. CIV 90-101-S) 

( E . D . Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitoner-appellant Elbert Harrison Vick appeals from the 

denial of his habeas corpus petition, 28 u.s.c. § 2254, and the 

denial of a certificate of probable cause, 28 u.s.c. § 2253. 

Although petitioner paid an initial filing fee, after judgment he 

sought leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). 28 u.s.c. 

§ 1915(a); 10th Cir. R. 24.1. The district court found that there 

* 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. 

** 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 ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-7029 Document: 010110133303 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 1 
was no probable cause for an appeal and denied petitioner leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis and a certificate of probable cause. R. 

doc. 16. From our review of the record, we are unable to find 

that the district court provided a written statement of reasons 

for its denial of (1) in forma pauperis status on appeal, or (2) a 

certificate of probable cause. Such a statement is required and 

should be provided in the future. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) & 

24(a); Herrera v. Payne, 673 F.2d 307, 308 (10th Cir. 1982). 

Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree and 

sentenced to life imprisonment. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, 

§ 701.7(A) (West 1983 & 1991 Cum. Supp.). His conviction was 

affirmed on direct appeal. Vick v. State, 756 P.2d 1239 (1988). 

As on direct appeal, petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support his conviction. See Vick, 756 F.2d at 1240. 

Thus, "the relevant question is whether, after viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any 

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 

U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original). 

An eyewitness testified that petitioner attacked the sleeping 

victim, striking him twenty to thirty times with a pipe. Vick, 

756 P.2d at 1239; Tr. at 210-12. Immediately prior to this, 

petitioner stood near decedent's bunk and told two other inmates 

'"you don't think I will do it, do you?"' Vick, 756 P.2d at 1239; 

Tr. at 210. Petitioner contends that the evidence will not 

support the malice aforethought necessary for first degree murder, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7029 Document: 010110133303 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 2 
but rather only manslaughter in the heat of passion without any 

design to effect death. R. doc. 11 at 2-3. The converse is true; 

the evidence amply supports murder with malice aforethought, but 

does not support manslaughter in the heat of passion without 

design to effect death. See 21 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 701.7 

("Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the 

life of a human being, which is manifested by external 

circumstances capable of proof."). See also Jackson v. Virginia, 

443 U.S. at 324-25. 

Petitioner also contends that the testimony of the eyewitness 

was not credible. The eyewitness testified that he met petitioner 

at a Toastmasters meeting, and later identified petitioner by 

institutional number, rather than by name. A report completed by 

the eyewitness contains only petitioner's institutional number. 

Petitioner argues that it is extremely unlikely that a person 

would remember both the name and number of a recent acquaintance. 

However, in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we do not 

weigh the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses. 

United States v. Waldron, 568 F.2d 185, 187 (10th Cir. 1977), 

cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1080 (1978). Credibility determinations 

are reserved for the jury, and we must presume that all such 

determinations were resolved in favor of the prosecution. Jackson 

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at 326. 

Petitioner has made a reasoned argument on the law and facts 

in support of his issue raised on appeal, see Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-7029 Document: 010110133303 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 3 
.. 

(10th Cir. 1962), and has demonstrated a financial inability to 

pay based on his personal account; therefore, we GRANT petitioner 

leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Given the issues 

raised on appeal, however, petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a federal right, see Lozada v. Deeds, 111 

S. Ct. at 861-62 (1991); therefore, we DENY petitioner a 

certificate of probable cause and DISMISS the appeal. 

SO ORDERED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-7029 Document: 010110133303 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 4