Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06232/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06232-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Cowley
Appellee
Tommy Dale Glass
Appellant
Robert H. Henry
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

Uflited States Co~rt ~f Appeals 

Tenth C1:-c'·t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 11991 

---------&OBERTL.HOECKER 

Clerk 

TOMMY DALE GLASS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY, Warden, and 

ROBERT H. HENRY, Attorney 

General, State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6232 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-113-A) 

( W. 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner-appellant Tommy Glass was convicted in Oklahoma 

state court of two counts of first degree rape, two counts of 

sodomy, two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, and one 

count of assault with intent to rape in Comanche County Case No. 

CRF-82-318. He was sentenced to 109 years' imprisonment. After 

exhausting his state court remedies, petitioner filed a petition 

* 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: 90-6232 Document: 010110098412 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 1 
\ 

for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging eleven separate grounds 

for relief. After reviewing the records of this case, the 

district court concluded petitioner received a fundamentally fair 

trial and denied his petition. Petitioner now appeals to this 

court, presenting the same eleven grounds for relief he argued 

before the district court. 1 We affirm. 

Initially, petitioner contends the state trial court erred in 

denying his motion to sever. We agree with the district court 

that the findings of state appellate court are supported by the 

record and entitled to a presumption of correctness under 

28 u.s.c. §2254(d). To be entitled to federal habeas corpus 

relief, petitioner must show the trial court's refusal to sever 

was an abuse of discretion and resulted in a fundamentally unfair 

trial. Madyun Y..!.. Young, 852 F.2d 1029, 1033-34 (7th Cir. 1988). 

The district court properly concluded that petitioner failed to 

show any specific and compelling prejudice resulting from the 

joinder of the offenses. 

In his second and fourth grounds, petitioner alleges the 

district court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding 

evidence of other crimes and that the prosecution must disprove 

beyond a reasonable doubt petitioner's alibi defense. The state 

court on direct appeal refused to ~onsider the merits of these 

1 The district court entered judgment on May 22, 1990. 

Petitioner's notice of appeal was filed with the court on June 25, 

1990, outside the time for notice of appeal in Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(l). We have jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal, however, under the rule announced in Houston Y..!.. Lack, 

487 U.S. 266 (1988). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6232 Document: 010110098412 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 2 
; 

claims because petitioner failed to preserve these issues by 

objecting at the appropriate time. Federal habeas corpus review 

is precluded when the last state court reviewing the judgment 

clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state 

procedural bar unless the petitioner shows cause for the default 

and resulting prejudice. Harris Y...!.. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 262-63 

(1989). Based on our review of the record, we cannot say the 

district court erred in concluding petitioner failed to show cause 

for the default or resulting prejudice. 

The third and sixth grounds for relief asserted by petitioner 

relate to prosecutorial misconduct. Federal habeas corpus relief 

is available here only if the prosecutor's conduct is so egregious 

in the context of the entire trial that it renders the trial 

fundamentally unfair. Donnelly Y...!.. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 

643 (1974). We agree with the district court's conclusion that 

the prosecutor's conduct in this case did not rise to this level. 

Peititoner also claims in his sixth ground that the trial 

court erred in ordering the sentences be served consecutively. 

The trial court correctly concluded federal habeas corpus relief 

is not available on this claim. See Ramirez Y...!.. Arizona, 437 F.2d 

119, 120 (9th Cir. 1971). 

The fifth ground for relief raised by petitioner is that 

there was insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to bind 

him over for trial on the offenses involving C.J. because she 

failed to identify him at that hearing. We agree with the trial 

court's finding that there was probable cause to bind petitioner 

over for trial on these charges. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6232 Document: 010110098412 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 3 
In his seventh ground for relief, petitioner claims the 

prosecutor suppressed material evidence, including medical records 

and rape examinations. He also asserts the state failed to prove 

every element of the crimes with which he was charged. We agree 

with the district court's determination that the prosecution did 

not suppress evidence in violation of Brady Y.!.. Maryland, 373 U.S. 

83, 87 (1963) because the evidence in question was not 

exculpatory. The district court also properly concluded the 

prosecution did not violate petitioner's constitutional rights by 

failing to perform scientific tests of the rape kit evidence. See 

Arizona Y.!.. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58-59 (1989). Finally, our 

review of the record convinces us there was sufficient evidence 

presented to the jury to convict petitioner on all the charges 

against him. 

Grounds eight and nine relate to the state court's handling 

of petitioner's application for post-conviction relief. Federal 

habeas relief is not available for such alleged defects in state 

post-conviction proceedings. See Hopkinson Y.!.. Shillinger, 866 

F.2d 1185, 1218-19 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 3256 

(1990). 

Petitioner claims in his tenth ground for relief that he was 

denied effective assistance of counsel during trial and on direct 

appeal. The court's determination that petitioner's counsel's 

failure to obtain the medical records and rape examination 

evidence for testing does not constitute ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Counsel's decision not to test this evidence was a 

reasonable strategic decision because such testing could have 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6232 Document: 010110098412 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 4 
1 

., 

revealed evidence harmful to petitioner. Plaintiff's other claims 

relating to ineffective assistance of counsel also lack merit. 

Finally, petitioner asserts the statute prohibiting crimes 

against nature, Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 886, is unconstitutionally 

vague and overbroad. We agree with the district court's 

conclusion that petitioner had sufficient notice by state court 

decisions that oral sodomy was proscribed by this statute. See 

Rose Y..!.. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 50-52 (1975). 

We therefore AFFIRM the district court's denial of the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6232 Document: 010110098412 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 5