Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04210/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04210-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tamara Holden
Appellee
Danilo Pascual
Appellant

Document Text:

·~ rLE D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ( •. tipd 51,rfes C'ottrl-tf l'rfP"'ls 

DANILO PASCUAL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TAMARA HOLDEN, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

f\UG 1 91992 

ROBEH.T L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-4210 

(D.C. No. 91-C-1086) 

(Dist. of Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Danilo Pascual, a Utah state prisoner, appeals from 

the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Pascual was convicted of criminal homicide and sentenced to 

serve five years to life on January 3, 1989. Upon appeal, his 

* 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: 91-4210 Document: 010110287300 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 1
conviction was affirmed by the Utah Court of Appeals. Among other 

grounds asserted on appeal, Pascual claimed that his trial counsel 

was ineffective because he failed to request an eyewitness 

instruction. 

In his § 2254 petition, Pascual claimed, inter alia, that 

his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately 

prepare for trial. The matter was referred to the United States 

Magistrate who submitted a Report and Recommendation that the 

petition be dismissed because Pascual had not raised the claim 

that his trial counsel had inadequately prepared for trial in the 

courts of the State of Utah and he had failed to exhaust his state 

remedies. The district court adopted the magistrate's Report and 

Recommendation the 

petition. 

over Pascual's objections and dismissed 

Pascual's claim that his trial counsel did not adequately 

prepare for trial is not the same ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim that he asserted on appeal. There he alleged that 

his trial 

eyewitness 

different. 

counsel was ineffective 

investigation. These 

in failing 

claims are 

to request an 

significantly 

The Magistrate found that "the petitioner did not seek 

postconviction relief on this issue [the ineffective assistance of 

counsel issue] in the state courts although he could have done so 

under Rule 65 B(f) U.R.C.P. Fernandez v. Cook, 783 P.2d 547 (Utah 

1989); Jensen v. DeLand, 795 P.2d 619 (Utah 1989); Dunn v. Cook, 

791 P.2d 873 (Utah 1990); Wagstaff v. Barnes, 802 P.2d 774 (Utah 

App. 1990) ." (R., Vol. I, Tab 3, p. 3). We agree. The Utah 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4210 Document: 010110287300 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 2
Supreme Court has adopted a flexible standard permitting 

postconviction challenges relating to incompetency of trial and 

appellate counsel. In addition to the cases cited by the 

Magistrate, supra, see also Hurst v. Cook, 777 P . 2d 1029, 1034-6 

(Utah 19 89) . 

We AFFIRM. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4210 Document: 010110287300 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 3