Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05005/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Champion
Appellee
State of Oklahoma
Appellee
Randall Eugene Wooten
Appellant

Document Text:

FI LED 

ll<lited States Courc of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL 12 1990 

RANDALL EUGENE WOOTEN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

RON CHAMPION, Warden; STATE OF 

OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5005 

(D.C. No. 87-C-1040-E) 

( N. D. Ok la. ) 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, 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. 

3 4(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner appeals from the district court's denial of his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserted pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. § 2254. Petitioner challenged his convictions on two 

counts of shooting with intent to kill, after two or more felony 

* 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: 89-5005 Document: 010110038286 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 1 
.. 

convictions, asserting he was denied a fair trial, in violation of 

the sixth and fourteenth amendments, when the trial court allowed 

the prosecutor, during closing argument, to refer to petitioner's 

eight prior felony convictions. 

As an initial issue, respondent argues petitioner was 

procedurally barred from asserting this argument in his section 

2254 petition. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma appellate court 

"noted" that petitioner had failed to object at trial to the 

prosecutor's remark, which, under state law, would procedurally 

bar petitioner from challenging the prosecutor's comment. Wooten 

v. State, 713 P.2d 602, 604 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). The Oklahoma 

court, nonetheless, addressed the merits of petitioner's challenge 

to the prosecutor's remark, ruling the prosecutor's reference to 

petitioner's eight prior felony convictions was not error. Id. 

While this court will be precluded from addressing the merits of 

petitioner's section 2254 claim where the state court "clearly and 

expressly" states that its judgment rests on a state procedural 

bar, even though the state court also addresses the merits of the 

claim, Harris v. Reed, 109 S. Ct. 1038, 1043-44 and n.10 (1989), 

the Oklahoma appellate court's affirmance of petitioner's 

convictions was not so "clearly and expressly" based upon the 

state's procedural bar to preclude this court's consideration of 

the merits of petitioner's claim. 

Petitioner was charged with two counts of shooting with 

intent to kill, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652, after 

two or more felony convictions, Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51. When a 

criminal charge is subject to the statutory enhancement provision, 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5005 Document: 010110038286 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 2 
the defendant is entitled to a bifurcated trial, with the first 

stage of the trial addressing the defendant's guilt on the 

underlying substantive crime charged, and the second stage 

add r essing the enhancement of defendant's sentence based upon his 

p rior felony convictions. See Harris v. State, 369 P.2d 187, 

19 3-95 (Okla. Crim. App. 1962). 

In the instant case, petitioner waived his right to a 

bifurcated trial and stipulated to the admission into evidence, 

du r ing the prosecution's case in chief, of the judgments and 

sentences documenting petitioner's eight prior felony convictions. 

The prosecutor's reference to this evidence, therefore, in remarks 

addressing the underlying substantive counts, was not erroneous. 

See Frazier v. State, 607 P.2d 709, 711 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). 

In his closing argument, the prosecutor made a single 

r eference to petitioner's prior felony convictions, as part of the 

prosecutor 's remarks concerning the substantive shooting charges: 

There is no evidence as to what the motivation was. 

You can see from the other evidence the State offered 

into evidence, Judgments and Sentences, Ladies and 

Gent l emen, official court documents. The State hopes to 

prove with these that you can find that this Defendant 

has been convicted eight times prior to this of 

felonies. I don't know--I don't think you can conclude 

what his motivation for doing this was from the 

evidence, but you can conclude from the evidence that 

this man had seen the police before, if you believe the 

State's evidence. 

Trial Tr. V. II at 140. 

Petitioner asserts this remark denied him a fair trial 

be cause the trial court allowed the prosecutor to refer to 

evidence of petitioner's prior convictions as evidence of his 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5005 Document: 010110038286 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 3 
guilt on the substantive shooting charges and as evidence of 

petitioner's bad character in general. 1 

Even if the prosecutor's comment could be considered error, 

such error would be harmless, in light of the brevity and 

ambiguity of the prosecutor's remark, the overwhelming evidence 

supporting petitioner's convictions on the two counts of shooting 

with intent to kill, and the limiting instruction given by the 

trial court. See Nichols, 867 F.2d at 1253 (federal courts, in 

section 2254 proceedings, will not disturb state courts' 

evidentiary and procedural rulings unless error so prejudicial, in 

context of entire trial, that defendant 

fundamental fairness essential to due process). 

was deprived of 

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 

1 It should be noted that while petitioner asserts this remark 

denied him a fair trial in violation of the sixth and fourteenth 

amendments, petitioner also asserts this issue is governed by 

Oklahoma law and this remark was improperly admitted under 

Oklahoma Rules of Evidence, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 2105, 2405. 

State law errors will be redressable on a petition for habeas 

relief pursuant to section 2254 only to the extent the state law 

errors amount to the denial of a fundamental right. See,~, 

Nichols v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 1250, 1253 (10th CirT, cert. 

denied, 109 s. Ct. 3169 (1989). 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-5005 Document: 010110038286 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 4