Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05225/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Jack Cowley
Appellee
Jackie Howard Parret
Appellant

Document Text:

t. .e D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unit Sc11.tts ourt of Appeals 

l'cnth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JACKIE HOWARD PARRET, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

State of Oklahoma; 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AP 2 6 rn91 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5225 

(D.C. No. 90-C-308-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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. 

Petitioner Jackie Howard Parret appeals the denial of his 

application for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, which challenged his conviction for burglary of an 

automobile after former conviction of a felony in the Oklahoma 

* 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: 90-5225 Document: 010110105207 Date Filed: 04/26/1991 Page: 1 
state courts. The district court denied relief on grounds that 

the application was successive inasmuch as it argued essentially 

identical claims to those the court had previously rejected in 

ruling upon an earlier petition. See Rule 9(b) of Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Cases -in the United States .District Courts. On appeal 

petitioner argues that his subsequent petition was not an abuse of 

the writ because, before making its determination, the district 

court had not previously called up a transcript of the state 

court's disposition of his claims. He also seeks to reargue his 

central claim that the state deprived appellant of his right to 

counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Petitioner had not 

appealed his state court conviction. Thereafter, when he tried to 

raise in three different collateral proceedings in state court, 

the issues that he was denied counsel, given inadequate advice by 

counsel, and inadequately instructed by the state district court 

as to his rights and the timing necessary to perfect an appeal, 

the state courts denied relief on grounds of procedural bypass. 

We do not reach the merits of petitioner's claim of the 

various alleged deprivations of his rights by the state courts. 

The petition that he brings before us for review is clearly successive to his earlier petition in federal court, disposed of by 

the same federal district court on December 8, 1988, and from 

which he took no appeal. The federal district court, in the 1988 

case, carefully considered and rejected all of petitioner's arguments, upholding the state court's findings. Whether the district 

court's ruling in 1988 was correct is of no concern to us at this 

late date; petitioner's only recourse was to appeal that earlier 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5225 Document: 010110105207 Date Filed: 04/26/1991 Page: 2 
determination, and he did not. He cannot acquire a new right of 

appeal by simply starting over again and appealing the district 

court's subsequent denial. In order for us to entertain the appeal we would have to find that the "ends of justice" require it. 

This means petitioner would have .to meet the cause and prejudice 

standard recently enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mccleskey v. 

Zant, 59 U.S.L.W. 4288 (U.S. Apr. 16, 1991), or show a 

"fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from a failure to 

entertain the claim." Id. at 4296. Petitioner has presented no 

evidence that satisfies such a standard. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5225 Document: 010110105207 Date Filed: 04/26/1991 Page: 3