Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06265/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06265-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Edward Evans
Appellee
Dorsey Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 1 ,~~, 

:&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DORSEY WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. No. 90-6265 

EDWARD EVANS, Warden; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

(D. C. No. CIV-90-740-W) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

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 cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Williams appeals, prose, the decision of the district 

court that denied his petition for habeas corpus. 

* 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: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Williams was convicted in state court of knowingly 

concealing and withholding stolen property. Following conviction, 

as Mr. Williams had two prior felony convictions, he was sentenced 

to twenty years, which was the minimum allowable sentence provided 

by Oklahoma law. Okla. Stat. tit 21, § Sl(B) (1981). Mr. 

Williams has exhausted his available state remedies. 

The unusual feature of this case is that the jury originally 

returned a sentence of six years. The state court judge then 

instructed the jury to reconsider its verdict as it was improper 

under Okla. Stat. tit 21, § Sl(B) which provides for a minimum 

sentence of twenty years. The jury recommenced its deliberations 

and returned with the sentence of twenty years. 

Mr. Williams filed 

u.s.c. § 2254 alleging: 

his petition for habeas relief under 28 

(1) he was denied his constitutional 

rights when the trial court submitted only one verdict form for 

the jury's consideration in sentencing and when the state trial 

court would not accept the first sentence imposed, which was below 

the minimum permitted by law; and (2) he was denied effective 

assistance of counsel both at trial and on his direct appeal. The 

district court denied relief in a well written and thorough 

Memorandum Opinion on July 31, 1990. 

Mr. Williams asserts the district court erred in denying his 

request for habeas relief. The law Mr. Williams asks us to apply 

is inapposite. The certificate of probable cause is denied. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 2 
Having considered Mr. Williams' arguments and the record on 

appeal, we hold the judgment of the district court should be 

AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth in the 

district court's Memorandum Opinion of July 31, 1990, a copy of 

which is attached. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 3 
1 

f 

! 

DORSEY 

vs . 

EDWARD 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR F'E ~ ij IE D 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA L,. .... · 

WILLIAMS, ) 

) 

Petitioner ) 

) 

) CIV-90-740-W 

) 

EVANS, ) 

) 

Respondent ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

JUL 3 l 1990 

/\'\.J .. ·.J $ 0/ tstr<1 c.J..Jt.t~N1~.~Ll:l'il\ 

. . :~?TEllNDIST.OFOKLJ 

.DEPI.ITY 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding prose, brings this 

action pursuant to 28 u.s.c . §2254 seeking a writ of habeas corpus. 

The response has been filed along with certain state court records, 

and the Petitioner has replied thereto. The court finds that an 

evidentiary hearing is not necessary as the issues raised may be 

resolved on the basis of the law and the state court records. 

Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction in the 

Di strict Court of Comanche County, case No. CRF-82-948. In that 

case, after trial by jury, Petitioner was sentenced to 20 years 

i mprisonment for knowingly concealing and withholding stolen 

property, after two prior felony convictions. The conviction was 

affirmed on direct appeal. Williams v. state, 720 P.2d 341 {Okla. 

Crim. App. 1986). Petitioner's subsequent application for postconviction relief was denied at the district court level and the 

denial was affirmed on appeal. Williams v. State, No. PC-90-0011 

{Okla. Crim. App. Jan. 29, 1990). Petitioner has exhausted his 

available state remedies with respect to the issues he raises in 

Appellate Case: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 4 
this petitiqn. 

In Petitioner's first ground for relief, he alleges that he 

was denied his constitutional rights when the trial court submitted 

only one verdict form for the jury's consideration and when the 

trial court would not accept the sentence imposed which was below 

the minimum permitted by law. 

This issue was thoroughly addressed on direct appeal and the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals stated: 

The facts surrounding this issue reveal the jury returned 

a verdict of guilty following the first stage of trial. 

In the second stage, defense counsel stipulated that 

appellant had incurred two prior felony convictions, as 

alleged by the State. Furthermore, the transcript 

reveals appellant himself admitted during his testimony 

in the first stage of trial that he had suffered two 

previous felony convictions. The trial judge accordingly 

submitted to the jury only one verdict form relating to 

punishment, which authorized the jury to find appellant 

"guilty of Concealing and Withholding Stolen Property 

After Former Conviction of Two Felonies, and fix his 

punishment at: ____ " Following deliberation on 

punishment, the jury returned with a verdict sentencing 

appellant to six years imprisonment. The trial court 

ordered the jury to return to the jury room and 

reconsider its verdict. The trial judge explained to 

trial counsel that the minimum sentence allowable under 

21 o.s. 1981, §5l(B) would be twenty years, and he would 

not accept any lesser sentence. Soon after the jury 

recommenced deliberations, they inquired whether twenty 

years would be the minimum sentence allowed. The trial 

judge responded affirmatively, and the jury returned the 

twenty year sentence .... 

Williams, 720 P.2d at 343. These factual findings are entitled to 

a presumption of correctness under 28 u.s.c. §2254(d). 

Under Oklahoma law, when a defendant takes the stand and 

· admits prior convictions (TR-220-221), there is no question of fact 

for the jury to decide regarding the existence of the former 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 5 
✓• 

\. 

' 

convictions. Jackson v. State, 719 P.2d 1294, 1296 (Okla. Crim. 

App. 1986). Once a defendant has confessed on the stand or defense 

counsel has stipulated that the defendant has suffered two or more 

prior felony convictions, the only punishment allowable is 

imprisonment of twenty years or more pursuant to 21 Okla. Stat. 

1981 §51 (B), and the jury should be instructed accordingly. 

Coleman v. State, 540 P.2d 1185 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). Here, the 

Petitioner admitted during the first stage of the trial that he had 

two prior felony convictions. Further, at the sentencing stage, 

the state introduced certified copies of the Texas convictions and 

counsel for the Petitioner stipulated that a certain witness would 

identify Petitioner as the same individual in the prior 

convictions. ·Thus, there was no issue left for the jury I s 

decision, other than setting punishment within the range provided 

by the statute. Further, the procedure used by the judge when the 

jury returned the sentence which was not in accordance with the 

statutory minimum comports with the Oklahoma statutes. 

stat. 1981 §918 and §919. 

22 Okla. 

Alleged errors in interpretation of state law are not 

cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceedings. 

State of Oklahoma, 546 F.2d 1369 (10th Cir. 1976). 

See Bond v. 

Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984) ("A federal court may not 

issue the writ on the basis of a perceived error of state law"). 

Federal courts respect the state court's interpretation of its own 

laws in the determination of a purely state legal issue. Brown v. 

Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 167 (1977). The number of verdict forms and 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 6 
the handling of an improper verdict by the jury are governed solely 

by state law. Thus, this issue does not raise an issue of 

constitutional dimension cognizable in a federal habeas corpus 

proceeding. 

For a second and final ground for relief, Petitioner argues 

that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and 

on direct appeal. This issue was raised by Petitioner in his postconviction application, and he essentially argues that counsel 

should have known that the verdict form was improper. The standard 

of review applicable to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 

is set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S~ 668 (1984). The 

Petitioner must first establish that counsel was deficient by 

showing that he committed errors so serious that he was not 

functioning as counsel guaranteed by the sixth Amendment. 

Secondly, the Petitioner must show that counsel's errors prejudiced 

the defense and that there is a reasonable probability that but for 

the errors of counsel, the result of the proceedings would have 

been different. A reasonable probability is a probability 

sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 

U.S. at 694. The burden is on the Petitioner to demonstrate how 

he was actually prejudiced by counsel's representation. United 

States v. Andrews, 790 F.2d 803, 815 (10th Cir. 1986), cert. 

denied, 486 U.S. 1018 (1987). As discussed above, the facts of 

Petitioner's case did not warrant the verdict forms which 

Petitioner alleges should have been submitted. 

Here, prior to jury selection, Petitioner's attorney informed 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 7 
the judge that as a matter of trial tactics, she felt it best to 

bring up the Petitioner's prior convictions during voir dire. (TR7). Petitioner's counsel then informed the jury panel that she 

anticipated that the Petitioner would testify during trial and 

would testify that he had two prior felony convictions. (TR-45). 

She then questioned the jury panel to ensure that the Petitioner's 

prior convictions would not influence their decision on his guilt 

or innocence on the crime for which he was being tried. (TR-45-

46, 69). Near the end of the first day of trial, the judge made 

inquiry of counsel in attempting to decide whether to continue with 

the trial into the evening or to recess until the following 

morning. (TR-215). The prosecutor expressed a preference for 

continuing into the evening because she had witnesses from out of 

the county to testify to the Petitioner's former convictions. (TR215). At that time, counsel for the state and the Petitioner 

entered into a stipulation that if the witnesses were called, they 

would identify the Petitioner as the person previously convicted. 

(TR-215-216). Then, as noted, Petitioner testified during the 

first stage at the trial and admitted his two prior felony 

convictions. (TR-220). The stipulation was then given to the jury 

during the second stage proceedings. (TR-301-302). A stipulation 

to prior convictions is not an uncommon trial strategy as it can 

lessen the impact of the proof of a defendant's past convictions 

without forcing the state to call several witnesses which can 

result in undue emphasis placed on the past convictions. Further, 

it is clear that Petitioner's strategy was to testify during the 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 8 
first stage .of the trial, and to deny that he "knowingly" was in 

possession of the stolen property. Thus, his prior convictions 

were admissible under Oklahoma law for impeachment purposes. 12 

Okla. Stat. 1981 §2609. There is no allegation that the prior 

convictions had been vacated or were in any respect invalid at the 

time of the trial or in the intervening years. Accordingly, the 

Petitioner makes no showing of prejudice with respect to the 

stipulation to the prior convictions or the verdict forms which 

were submitted to the jury. Petitioner's ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim fails. 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is without merit and is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2-,\ .J;ct day of~,._Q,,'tS 1990. 

LEER. WEST 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6265 Document: 010110069780 Date Filed: 01/10/1991 Page: 9