Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05184/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Burney Allen
Appellant
Attorney General
Appellee
Jack Cowley
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Coprtqf Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 3 1993 

BURNEY ALLEN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No . 92-5184 

) (D.C. No. 92-C-80-B) 

) (N .D. Okla.} 

} 

) 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, HOLLOWAY, and BARRETT, 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 

Petitioner Burney Allen appeals the dismissal of his petition 

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court dismissed the 

petition as an abuse of the writ, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the 

* 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: 92-5184 Document: 010110212856 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 1 
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 

Courts. The district court issued a certificate of probable 

cause. Our jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S . C. § 1291. 

Petitioner, through counsel, filed a prior federal habeas 

petition on January 13, 1988, alleging his due process rights were 

violated because (1) blacks were unconstitutionally excluded from 

the jury panel, (2) the prosecutor injected his personal opinion 

into the closing argument, (3) the jury instructions were 

inadequate in that they did not define manslaughter in the first 

degree, (4) the trial court denied his motion to dismiss and 

overruled his demurrer to the evidence, and (5) the conviction was 

based on testimony of a witness who subsequently changed her 

testimony. The district court denied relief, Allen v. Oklahoma, 

No. 88-C-26-E (N.D. Okla. Dec. 6, 1988), and we affirmed, Allen v. 

Oklahoma, No. 88-2955 (10th Cir. Nov. 9, 1989). 

Petitioner, proceeding prose, filed a second petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus on January 29, 1992. In the second 

petition, he alleged he was denied his right to the effective 

assistance of his trial counsel for counsel's failure to 

(1) interview, investigate, call and impeach witnesses, (2) file 

motions to suppress evidence, (3) produce evidence of another 

suspect, (4 ) permit petitioner to exercise his right to compulsory 

process to obtain witnesses, and (5) craft the jury instruction to 

define completely the crime of first degree manslaughter. 

Petitioner further claims the state court failed to fairly resolve 

various evidentiary matters, that petitioner's guilt was not 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-5184 Document: 010110212856 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 2 
established at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, and petitioner was 

denied effective assistance of appellate and habeas counsel. 

Respondents moved to dismiss the second habeas petition as an 

abuse of the writ, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b) and Rule 9 {b ) 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Courts. Respondents alleged that petitioner had failed 

to establish "cause and prejudice" for failing to include the 

current claims in his first federal habeas petition. 

Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 S. Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991). 

We have considered petitioner's arguments in light of the 

record, and we affirm the district court's dismissal of 

petitioner's second habeas petition for substantially the reasons 

given in the district court's order dated August 27, 1992, a copy 

of which is attached. 

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 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-5184 Document: 010110212856 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 3 
ENTERED ON DOCKET 

DATE l h t /9 ;l--/ 

7 ' 

IN TI-IE UNITED Sf ATES DISrR.ICT COURT FOR TI-IE 

NORTIIERN Drsrn.ICT OF OKLAHOMA 

BURNEY ALLEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER 

,_ 

Now before this Court is Respondent's Motion To Dismiss. Petitioner Burney Allen 

filed a Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus on January 13, 1988. This Court later 

dismissed the Petition, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Allen then filed this Habeas Petition 

on January 29, 1992. Respondent now contends the instant Petition should be dismissed 

as an abuse of the writ pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases. 

I. Summary o[Facts/Procedural History 

On March 6, 1980, Allen and Calvin Baker argued outside a Tulsa bar. A witness 

testified that Allen killed Baker by shooting him four times. Baker died, and Allen was 

subsequently convicted of first-degree murder, following a jury trial. Allen was sentenced 

to life in prison for the murder. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the 

conviction. Allen v. State, 674 P.2d 1149, 1150 (Okl.Cr. 1984). 

On January 13, 1988, Allen filed a Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus in this Court. 

See Case No. 88-C-26-E. Five grounds were raised in the habeas: 1) That blacks were 

excluded from his jury panel; 2) That the prosecutor injected his personal opinion during 

1 

Appellate Case: 92-5184 Document: 010110212856 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 4 
the trial's dosing argument; 3) Inadequate jury instrnctions; 4) That the trial court erred 

in denying the motion to dismiss and in overruling his demurrer to the evidence; and 5) 

That his conviction was based on the testimony of a witness who later changed her story. 

See Findings and Recommendations of U.S. Magistrate, February 25, 1988, Case No. 88-C-26-

E. The Petition was dismissed on the merits, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 

On January 29, 1992, Allen filed this Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus. Allen 

raises nine issues, many of which focus on ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial, 

on appeal and during his quest for post-conviction relief. On March 6, 1992, Respondent 

filed the Motion To Dismiss. arguing that Allen has abused the writ. 

II. Legal Analysis 

The issue is whether Allen has abused the writ by raising issues in this habeas 

procee~g that he could have asserted in his first habeas petition. Rule 9(b) of the Rules 

Governing §2254 Cases states: 

(b) Successive petitions. A second or successive petition may be dismissed 

if the judge finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and 

the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grormds 

are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the petitioner to assert those 

grormds in a prior petition constituted an abuse of the writ. 

Allen's second Petition raises new and different grounds than his first request for 

habeas relief. As a result, Allen must prove that he has not abused the habeas writ. 

Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991).1 He can do this in two ways: l)He 

1 ~ Suprmse Coun cplains what a coun shcuJd aamiM on the "abuse of writ' issue "Whm a prisont:r fiJa a second or JUbsequt:111 

applicarion, the gc,vmunmz bean w burdm of pl.eading abuse of the writ. ~ govanmau salisjks this burden if, wilh cJariloj and partit:ukuily, 

il nora pailjona's prior writ luswry, idmlifies the claims dull ap~ for the first time, and allqp dull pailjont:r has abused the MiL ~ 

burden w disprol'f: abuse thm IH!coma pailjona'$. To ~his~ to raise the ciaim azrlier, lu: 77WSt snow cause for failing to raise il 

and prqudia therefrorn...McCksia:v, 111 S.Cl. U54 at 1470. Rq,ondml met his burden. S« Manoraruium Brief In Supporr Of Morion To 

~dodca#6). · 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-5184 Document: 010110212856 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 5 
must show cause for not raising the new grounds in his first Habeas Petition and the 

prejudice he has suffered as a result; or, he must show that a fundamental miscarriage of 

justice would result from a failure to entertain the claim. Rodriquez v. Maryland, 948 F.2d 

684, 687 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Allen has made no showing of a fundamental miscarriage of justice. McCleskey, 111 

S.Ct. at 1470-71.2 Therefore, to excuse his failure to raise these new grounds in his first 

-~ petition, Allen must assert a valid "cause" that consists of factors external to him that 

cannot fairly be attributed to him. See, generally, Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S.Ct. 2546 

(1991). 

Allen has made no such showing. Given the fact that Allen's new claims revolve 

around alleged errors at his trial, on appeal, and during the post-conviction proceedings, 

the record indicates that Allen knew the factual basis for the new claims at the time he 

filed the first Habeas Petition. Allen does not assert otherwise and he does not adequately 

explain why he did not raise the new claims in his first petition. Instead, he simply reiterates the alleged misconduct by his trial attorney. 

Therefore, based on the foregoing reasoning, this Court finds that Allen has not met 

his burden to disprove abuse of the writ. Respondent's Motion To Dismiss is GRANIED. 

2 All.en SQ)!S' Mis innoct:n.t of the •~ tluJJ he stan.d(s] convicted for." Supplt!lnDUal Memorandum. page 2 (dodcet #9). BUI this is 

TlOt a "colorabk shewing of facrual innocmce." And nothing in the =cl suggests tluJJ this case would fall into the fun.dmnenlaJ miscarriage 

of justice catqpy. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-5184 Document: 010110212856 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 6 
SO ORDERED THIS 2J._ day of 

,_ 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-5184 Document: 010110212856 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 7