Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06239/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06239-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Alvin Parker
Appellant
Michael D. Parsons
Appellee

Document Text:

, " . FILED 

Umtcd S!ates Courc of Appeals 

r enrh Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUN 7 1990 

AOBERT L. HOECK.ER 

Clerk 

ALVIN PARKER, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

MICHAEL D. PARSONS; STEPHEN W.) 

KAISER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) 

State of Oklahoma, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

Nos. 89-6239 and 90-6068 

(D. C. No. CIV 88-1360-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

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(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Parker was convicted of first degree murder in an 

Oklahoma court in April 1986. Mr. Parker's counsel filed an 

* 

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: 89-6239 Document: 010110036107 Date Filed: 06/07/1990 Page: 1 
appeal of this conviction and after receiving eleven extensions 

filed his brief-in-chief in September 1988. 

In the meantime Mr. Parker filed a prose application for 

habeas relief with the United States District Court under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, claiming an excessive delay in processing the 

direct appeal of his state court conviction and asserting 

ineffective assistance of counsel. This application was filed in 

August 1988. The United States District Court in September 1988 

dismissed this action holding that Mr. Parker had failed to 

exhaust his state remedies and that his claim of ineffective 

counsel was premature. 

Mr. Parker appealed the decision to this court (88-2590) and 

in a separate action (88-2961) 

jurisdiction in this court. We 

concurred in the district court's 

attempted to 

consolidated 

decision that 

invoke 

these 

the 

original 

appeals, 

claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel was premature, and remanded to 

the district court for further proceedings on Mr. Parker's claim 

of inordinate delay in the Oklahoma appellate process. This was 

done on January 6, 1989. 

Upon remand and following numerous additional proceedings, 

the district court entered its Memorandum Opinion (dated April 27, 

1989), in which it found as a factual matter that the delay in the 

appellate process was not due to the state courts nor to the 

state's attorney general's actions, but rather to the numerous 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6239 Document: 010110036107 Date Filed: 06/07/1990 Page: 2 
extensions obtained by Mr. Parker's counsel. Relying upon 

Prescher v. Crouse, 431 F.2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1970), the court 

held that the delay in the appeal was attributable to causes 

beyond the state's control. Mr. Parker then filed a motion to 

alter or amend this judgment, which was denied on June 14, 1989. 

Mr. Parker's prose appeal from this judgment is docketed as 89-

6239. 

On October 24, 1989, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

reversed Mr. Parker's conviction and the case was remanded for new 

trial due to tainted identification procedures and prosecutorial 

misconduct. On November 20, 1989, Mr. Parker instituted an 

additional pro se habeas action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254 to 

prevent his retrial, contending that his retrial violates the 

Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and that there is no 

sufficient evidence to justify his conviction on retrial. The 

district court analyzed these claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 

U.S. 37 (1971) (federal court should not enjoin a state criminal 

prosecution except in very unusual circumstances to prevent 

immediate irreparable injury and only after a showing of bad 

faith, harassment or other unusual circumstances that would call 

for equitable relief), and Dolack v. Allenbrand, 548 F.2d 891, 893 

(10th Cir. 1977) (applying Younger to a habeas action seeking to 

stop state prosecution). In an order dated January 25, 1990, the 

district court concluded that because Mr. Parker's criminal 

prosecution was pending in state court and there existed no 

special circumstances to justify intervention with the state 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6239 Document: 010110036107 Date Filed: 06/07/1990 Page: 3 
criminal proceedings, the petition must be dismissed as a matter 

of comity. The district court subsequently declined to review the 

sufficiency of the evidence against Mr. Parker, citing Greene v. 

Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 26 n.9 (1978). The district court also 

declined to issue a certificate of probable cause. 

On December 9, 1989, before the district court's order 

dismissing Mr. Parker's habeas petition was issued, Mr. Parker 

petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, alleging a 

double jeopardy violation. That petition was denied March 26, 

1990. Mr. Parker's pro se appeal of the district court's 

decision, filed in this court on February 23, 1990, is docketed as 

90-6068. 

This court now combines 89-6239 and 90-6068. 

89-6239 

In this appeal, Mr. Parker contends a delay by court 

appointed counsel in processing a direct appeal, where counsel's 

delay is due to a heavy case load, is violative of due process and 

equal protection. Mr. Parker cites Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 

(1963) (violation of Fourteenth Amendment to deny appellate review 

to indigent defendant because of his poverty); Burns v. Ohio, 360 

U.S. 252 (1959) (denial of right by indigent prisoner to appeal 

solely because he was unable to pay a filing fee violated 

Fourteenth Amendment); and Prescher v. Crouse, 431 F.2d 209 (10th 

Cir. 1970) (delay of fifteen months between time of filing state's 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6239 Document: 010110036107 Date Filed: 06/07/1990 Page: 4 
.. 

appeal and filing of habeas was attributable to causes beyond 

state's control and there existed no special circumstances calling 

for federal court intervention). 

Mr. Parker's arguments lack legal merit. The cases cited do 

not help Mr. Parker's case. The district court correctly applied 

the law, and its decision is affirmed. 

90-6068 

Mr. Parker contends that a state appellate court has no power 

on direct appeal to remand a criminal case for a new trial without 

first determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support 

the jury's verdict, and argues that a state appellate court must 

review the sufficiency-of-evidence claim in every case where this 

claim is asserted on appeal. Mr. Parker cites Justices of Boston 

Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294 (1984) (respondent's 

retrial de novo without any judicial determination of the 

sufficiency of the evidence at his prior bench trial will not 

violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; however, the Double Jeopardy 

Clause does prevent a second trial once the reviewing court has 

found the evidence legally insufficient); and Lane v. Brown, 372 

U.S. 477 (1963) (state deprived respondent of right secured by 

Fourteenth Amendment by refusing him appellate review). 

Once again, the authorities cited and relied upon by Mr. 

Lydon do not help this case. In fact, Lydon holds that the Double 

Jeopardy Clause does not require a determination of the 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6239 Document: 010110036107 Date Filed: 06/07/1990 Page: 5 
• 

sufficiency of the evidence before proceeding with a second trial. 

466 U.S. at 309-10. The decision of the district court was 

correct and is affirmed. 

We grant Mr. Parker leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

having considered the appeal on the merits, AFFIRM the decisions 

of the district court. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-6239 Document: 010110036107 Date Filed: 06/07/1990 Page: 6