Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06268/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jackie Lee Parker
Appellant
James Saffle
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States (oμ,r pf Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DEC 2 7 1QQQ 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk JACKIE LEE PARKER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES SAFFLE, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6268 

(D. C. No. CIV-90-644-P) 

( W. D. Ok la • ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMEN'l'* 

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. Parker appeals the denial of . his petition for habeas 

corpus. 

* 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: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 1 
.. Mr. Parker pleaded guilty in state court in May 1980 to 

second degree murder. After accepting his guilty plea, the 

Oklahoma District Court sentenced Mr. Parker to serve forty-five 

years. · • 

Mr. Parker did not file a direct appeal, although he twice 

was denied the right to appeal out of time, these denials being 

upheld by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals. Mr. Parker sought post 

conviction relief on the issue of effective assistance of counsel 

and following an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied 

relief. Mr. Parker then filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in the Western District of Oklahoma and was denied relief. 

It is from this order that Mr. Parker now appeals prose. 

Mr. Parker requests leave to prosecute his appeal to this 

court in forma pauperis, and we grant this request. 

By way of a general summary of facts, Mr. Parker, with the 

assistance of experienced counsel, entered a plea to second degree 

murder, apparently as a result of a plea bargain, as he was 

originally charged with first degree murder. As a part of the 

proceedings, Mr. Parker caused to be filled out and he signed a 

document entitled "Plea of Guilty: Summary of Facts." This 

document consists of three pages and requires answers to thirtyfour questions. This document generally encompasses the 

information required under Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(c). It was also 

signed by Mr. Parker's counsel and the prosecutor. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 2 
• 

In his habeas petition to the district court, Mr. Parker 

complained that: (1) he was not advised of all the elements of 

the offense charged: (2) that his guilty plea was not knowingly, 

intelligently and voluntarily entered: (3) that the trial court 

failed to determine a factual basis for the guilty plea: (4) that 

the trial court committed constitutional error by using the 

summary of facts: and (5) that errors were made in the evidentiary 

hearing concerning his assertion of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. 

The United States District Court carefully considered and 

analyzed these assertions in a seven-page memorandum opinion dated 

June 29, 1990, and denied relief. Mr. Parker then filed a motion 

to reconsider and the District Court, in its Order of July 20, 

1990, again denied relief. 

Mr. Parker now appeals pro so, asserting: (1) that he is 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing; (2) that there exists genuine 

issues of law and fact that were subsequently discovered (the 

record fails to disclose that court or counsel explained the 

elements of the crime); (3) that no one explained to him the 

distinction between first and second degree murder; (4) that his 

court appointed counsel was ineffective; (5) that the trial court 

failed to determine whether he was competent; (6) that both his 

conviction and .sentence are in violation of the federal 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 3 
Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution; and (7) that the 

"state trial court was without competent jurisdiction." 

We have carefully considered the record on appeal and Mr. 

Parker's briefs. None of the issues raised merit discussion as 

they are not supported by the record. The record clearly reveals: 

(1) the state trial court was presented with a sufficient factual 

basis to accept the guilty plea; (2) there existed no evidence to 

place Mr. Parker's mental competency at issue when he entered his 

guilty plea in 1980; and (3) Mr. Parker was not deprived of 

effective assistance of counsel. 

The judgment of the · District Court is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in the previously 

described memorandum opinion and order of July 20, 1990, copies of 

each being attached hereto. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 4 
• 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR f ~ l ED 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA . 

JUN 2 9 90 

Rl:isERT ·o. DENNIS 

JACKIE LEE PARKER, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CL.ERK, U.S. DISTRICT·couRT 

i!ESTt:.:::; CISTRICT OF Oi,.LAr.CMA 

SY O:'.?VTY . ~ 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JAMES SAFFLE, et al., 

Respondents. 

JUDGMENT 

In consideration of the entered Opinion, it is hereby 

. 

CIV-90-644-P 

·, 

.. 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus is without merit and is accordingly denied. Since the issues do not warrant 

further analysis and other courts would not differ from this Court's conclusion in the 

case, the 28 U.S.C. §2253 certificate of probable cause shall not issue. Regarding the in 

forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. §1915, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is 

denied, inasmuch as an appeal would be frivolous and in bad faith. 

Entered this ;; ? day of June, 1990. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

ENTERED IN JUDG£M-£NT DOCKET ON t- z_ 7 . 7 c 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 5 
• t 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

JACKIE LEE PARKER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JAMES SAFFLE, et al., 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

JUN 2 9 90 

ROBERT ·o. DENNIS 

CL.'ERK, U.S. OISTRICT"COURT 

WE"STI:.."!:-1 OISTRJCT OF Oh!.AHOMA 

BY DEPUTY w.,---- -

CIV-90-644-P 

The Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeding prose and in Jonna pauperis, brings this 

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner challenges 

the validity of his conviction upon a plea of guilty to murder in the second degree in 

Oklahoma County Case No. CRF 80-438. Respondent has filed a response to the Petition 

and the matter is at issue. The Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary 

as the issues raised may be resolved on the basis of the law and on the state court 

records. 

Petitioner sought post-conviction relief in December, 1988. After a March, 1989 

evidentiary hearing on the issue of effective assistance of counsel, the state court entered 

its Order denying post-conviction relief on April 6, 1989. 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 6 
• t 

A guilty plea accepted without an affirmative showing that it is intelligent and 

voluntary is a due process violation. Boykin v. Alabama. 395 U.S. 238 (1969). The 

voluntariness of the guilty plea should be determined by considering the totality of the 

circumstances. Brady v. United States. 397 U.S. 742. 749 (1970). The record should 

reflect a full understanding of the direct consequences of the plea. North Carolina v. 

Alford, 400 U.S. 25. 31 (1970). It is not necessary that the record reflect a detailed 

enumeration and waiver of rights; rather. the issue is simply whether the record 

affirmatively shows that the guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary. Stinson v. Turner. 

473 F.2d 913 (10th Cir. 1973). In this case. the Summary of Facts is a sufficient record 

with which to make the necessary qeterrnination. Moore v. Anderson. 474 F.2d 1118 

(10th Cir. 1973). 

As the first ground for relief. Petitioner essentially alleges that the guilty plea was 

not knowing and voluntary because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing 

prior to accepting the guilty plea. The Summary of Facts form contains questions and 

statements concerning the Petitioner's competency to enter the plea and to understand 

the nature of the proceedings. It includes a finding by the trial court that Petitioner was 

mentally competent to understand the nature, purpose and consequences of the 

proceeding and to appreciate and understand the acts he committed on or about the date 

alleged in the Information, and the realize the nature. purpose, and consequences of the 

those acts at the time they were committed. Petitioner denied that he was taking any 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 7 
. , 

.. 

kind of medication, or had ever been treated for any mental illness. Counsel stated that 

he no reason to believe that Petitioner was not mentally competent to both understand 

and assist in the proceedings and to appreciate and understand the nature and purposes 

and consequences of his acts at the time they were committed. 

The test for determining competency to plead guilty is the same test used to 

detennine competency to stand trial as set forth in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 

(1960). Wolf v. United States, 430 F.2d 443, 444 (10th Cir. 1970). That test is "that 

the accused have 'sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable 

degree of rational understanding . . . and whether he has a rational as well as factual 

understanding of the proceedings against him."' Wolf v. United States, 430 F.2d at 444 

(quoting Dusky). The record is devoid of any indication of incompetency and Petitioner 

even now offers no facts from which incompetency could be inferred. Absent any 

evidence of incompetency, there is no constitutional duty on the part of the trial judge 

to conduct a hearing on Petitioner's mental competency. See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 

162 (1975); United States v. Cruz, 781 F.2d 826 (10th Cir. 1986); United States v. 

Dunn, 594 F.2d 1367, 1372 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 852 (1979). Any 

claim for relief on this basis must fail. Further, to the extent the Petitioner seeks habeas 

relief for alleged errors in the state post-conviction proceedings, the claim must likewise 

fail. Several circuits, including the Tenth Circuit, have held that alleged defects in state 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 8 
.. 

post-conviction proceedings may not be challenged in a federal habeas action. Hopkinson 

v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1218-1219 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Petitioner next contends that the plea was not voluntarily entered because the 

nature of the proceedings was not fully explained and he was not informed of the rights 

he would be waiving. This claim is refuted by the record. The Summary of Facts signed 

by the prosecutor, counsel for the defense, the judge, court reporter and Petitioner, 

reflects that Petitioner was specifically advised of the rights he would be waiving by 

entering the guilty plea. The Summary of Facts also specifically reflects that Petitioner 

was charged with "Murder I reduced to Murder II" and that he had a copy of the charges~ 

Petitioner claims that the nature of the proceedings was not explained to him, but he 

failed to allege what he did not understand about the proceedings. Although the 

Petitioner's prose complaint is entitled to liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519 (1972), "the Court will not supply additional facts, nor construct a legal theory for 

the [Petitioner] that assumes facts that have not been pleaded." Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 

1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 871 (1990). 

Petitioner next alleges that counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise 

Petitioner how to appeal, failed to investigate potential defenses, and was unfamiliar 

with criminal procedure. Petitioner's contention that he was not advised of his right to 

appeal is refuted directly by the record, as the written Summary of Facts form specifically 

reflects that he was advised how to appeal from the guilty plea. Further, the failure to 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 9 
notify a defendant of the limited right to appeal a guilty plea is not in itself ineffective 

assistance of counsel. See Laycock v. State of New Mexico, 880 F.2d 1184 (10th Cir. 

1989). See also Barber v. United States, 427 F.2d 70, 71 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 

400 U.S. 867 (1970)(sentencing court has no duty to advise defendant of right to appeal 

a guilty plea). Moreover, the state court on post-conviction held an evidentiary hearing 

on March 30, 1989, specifically on the issue of the defendant's understanding of the 

requirement that he file an application to withdraw the plea of guilty within 10 days 

from the date that he entered the plea. Petitioner's counsel in that case testified to the 

court that: 

It is my policy and practice on all cases to advise my clients they have a 

right to file an application to withdraw their plea of guilty. I generally tell 

my clients that the court will determine if you file that application whether 

you plead guilty knowingly and voluntarily. 

I am confident and I have handled probably 75 to 100 murder pleas of 

guilty since I have been in the public defender's office, and all murder cases 

I specifically go over each and every allegation on the Information with my 

client and each and every question on this Summary of Facts. 

I've no doubt in my mind that Mr. Parker knew he had a right to file an 

application to withdraw his plea of guilty within 10 days. I told him this 

and I am confident he understood it. 

Oklahoma County District Court Record 175-176. 

Regarding Petitioner's claim that counsel failed to investigate potential defenses, 

the Court notes first that this is totally conclusory with no facts in support of this claim. 

Further, when a habeas Petitioner enters a guilty plea upon advice of counsel and later 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 10 
.. 

seeks to set aside the guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the Petitioner 

must show that the counsel's assistance was not within the range of competence 

demanded of counsel in criminal cases, McMann v. Richardson. 397 U.S. 759. 771 

(1970), and that there is a reasonable probability that without the error. the Petitioner 

would not have pleaded guilty. but would have insisted on proceeding to trial. Hill v. 

Lockhart. 474 U.S. 52. 59 (198S)(expressly holding that the two-prong standard adopted 

in Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668 (1984) for evaluating claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. applies in the context of guilty pleas). To show "prejudice" 

resulting from alleged failure to investigate, the Petitioner must show that there would 

have been evidence discovered which would have caused counsel to change his 

recommendation as to the guilty plea, i.e., that the evidence would have likely changed 

the predicted outcome of the trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. at 59. Petitioner must 

make a reasonably comprehensive showing of what evidence the investigation would have 

produced. United States ex rel Cross v. DeRobertis, 811 F.2d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 

1987). Likewise, if Petitioner claims he was not advised of a potential affirmative 

defense, he must show that the affirmative defense would have likely succeeded at trial. 

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. at 59. Petitioner wholly fails to explain what avenues were 

not investigated and what potential affirmative defenses were not raised which could 

have led to a change in the predicted outcome of the trial. Petitioner's claim must fail. 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 11 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is without merit 

and is accordingly denied. Since the issues do not warrant further analysis and other 

courts would not differ from this Court's conclusion in the case, the 28 U.S.C. §2253 

certificate of probable cause shall not issue. Regarding the in f orma pauperis statute, 28 

U.S.C. §1915, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied, inasmuch as an 

appeal would be frivolous and in bad faith. 

Entered this ~ day of June, 1990. 

LXYN R. HI s 

UN;;:r; ST~S ;STRICT JUDGE 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 12 
(10th Cir. 1976). "A federal court may not issue the writ on the basis of a perceived 

'. 

error of state law." Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984). Habeas relief is available 

only on the grounds that the prisoner is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws 

or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §2254(a). Any claim that the trial court 

failed to establish a factual basis for the plea is likewise without merit. Absent a 

protestation of innocence at the time a guilty plea is entered or other circwnstances 

putting the court on notice, there is no constitutionally mandated duty on the part of the 

state trial court to establish the factual basis for the plea. Smith v. McCotter, 786 F.2d 

697, 702 (5th Cir. 1986); Wilbright v. Smith, 745 F.2d 779, 780, 781 (2nd Cir. 1984); . 

Sena v. Romero, 617 F.2d 579, 581 (10th Cir. 1980); Freeman v. Page, 443 F.2d 493, 

496-497 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 44 U.S. 1001 (1971). 

The analysis of the court in Worthen v. Meachum, 842 F.2d 1179, 1183 (10th Cir. 

1988), is dispositive of Petitioner's claim regarding the alleged failure of the state court 

to advise Petitioner of the elements of the offense charged: 

Courts have made this presumption [that a defendant understands the 

nature of the charge even though a specific explanation is not shown on 

the plea record] when a defendant of normal intelligence is read an 

information that is clear and not complex (citations omitted); when the 

defendant has discussed the plea with an experienced criminal lawyer 

(citation omitted); and when the defendant has offered no evidence to 

rebut the presumption that his attorney has explained the nature of the 

offense to him (citation omitted). 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 13 
Here the Summary of Facts reflects that Petitioner had a copy of the charges against him 

and he has offered no evidence to rebut the presumption that his attorney explained the 

nature of the offense to him. Even now, Petitioner does not allege what element of the 

crime he did not understand. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner received actual 

notice of the charge to which he pled sufficient to allow him to form an intelligent 

decision to plead guilty, despite the fact that a specific explanation of the charge is not 

shown on the plea record. 

Petitioner's July 9, 1990 brief also alleges that during the plea and sentencing 

hearing he was not advised that he had a right to the continued assistance of counsel 

should he decide to change his plea and go to trial. The Summary of Facts form clearly 

reflects that Petitioner had the right to maintain a plea of not guilty and exercise "all the 

rights" identified therein which would include the right to the services of counsel. 

(Paragraph 14, Plea of Guilty - Summary of Facts, p. 143, Criminal Appeal Original 

Record). Moreover, withdrawal of a guilty plea after the court has rendered its sentence 

is a matter of discretion with the trial court. Vuletich v. State, 735 P.2d 568, 570 

(Okl.Cr. 1987). Also see Dankert v. Wharton, 733 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. 

denied, 469 U.S. 1020 (1984)(no absolute right to counsel in post-conviction 

discretionary plea withdrawal proceeding, therefore no constitutional error in declining 

to appoint counsel). 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 14 
The Court has reviewed the available state court records and concludes that 

Petitioner has failed to show that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently 

entered. Accordingly, the Motion and Brief treated as a Motion to Alter or Amend 

Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) are denied. 

Entered this ~ day of July, 1990. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6268 Document: 010110097361 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 15