Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05162/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05162-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Riley Mitchell Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

; . , 

FI LED 

United States Com.·c c,f Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 10 1QQO 

ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RILEY MITCHELL JONES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-5162 

) (D.C. No. 89-C-310-B) 

) (N.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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 case is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals the district court's denial of his motion 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255 to vacate his sentence based upon his 

conviction for receipt of a firearm by a convicted felon, see 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(h)(l) and 924(a) (1982), challenging the use at 

* 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: 89-5162 Document: 010110059553 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 1 
-

trial of evidence seized from defendant's home pursuant to a 

search warrant. Defendant asserted two claims for section 2255 

relief, based upon alleged violations of the fourth amendment: 1) 

the affidavit submitted to the magistrate in support of the search 

warrant contained false information and material 

misrepresentations; and 2) officers executing the search warrant 

seized numerous items outside the scope of the search warrant. 

Although he filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized 

pursuant to the search warrant prior to trial, defendant failed to 

assert these specific claims to the trial court. Further, while 

defendant pursued a direct appeal of his conviction, defendant 

never raised these two issues until this section 2255 motion for 

collateral review. Absent a showing of cause and prejudice, a 

defendant will be precluded from asserting a claim in a 

section 2255 motion where the defendant failed to assert the issue 

on direct appeal. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 

167-68 (1982); United States v. Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 753-54 (10th 

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988). 

Defendant asserts he made a sufficient showing of cause 

excusing his failure to raise these claims prior to this section 

2255 motion because these claims were based upon newly discovered 

evidence. With one exception, however, the facts underlying 

defendant's allegations challenging the affidavit were available 

to defendant prior to his trial or were within defendant's 

knowledge at the time of trial. Defendant failed to establish 

sufficient cause excusing his failure to raise these claims on 

direct appeal and, therefore, this procedural default precluded 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5162 Document: 010110059553 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 2 
,../ \ -

consideration of these issues for the first time in a section 2255 

motion. See Greene v. United States, 880 F.2d 1299, 1306-07 (11th 

Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1322 (1990). 

The one exception was defendant's allegation that, in a 

subsequent prosecution, a government witness denied making a 

statement attributed to her in the affidavit supporting the search 

warrant which linked defendant to the illegal drug-related 

activities of his codefendants. This testimony was not offered 

until after defendant's trial and the direct appeal of his 

conviction. Nonetheless, accepting this allegation as true and 

striking the witness's statement from the affidavit, the affidavit 

remained sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance 

of the warrant authorizing the search of defendant's home. See 

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978). Defendant, 

therefore, failed to establish any prejudice as a result of this 

statement and, therefore, consideration of this allegation was 

also precluded. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5162 Document: 010110059553 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 3