Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06103/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06103-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve Hargett
Appellee
Gordon Roberts Olson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GORDON ROBERTS OLSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 2 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-6103 

v. 

STEVE HARGETT, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-2112-A) 

) (W. Dist. 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 th~ determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner Gordon Roberts Olson appeals from the denial of 

his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The thrust of petitioner's contention is that the trial court failed to conduct a 

competency hearing, and that he was not competent to enter a 

*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: 90-6103 Document: 010110041443 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 1 
guilty plea. In post-conviction proceedings, the state court held 

his claims procedurally barred because he failed to take a direct 

appeal from his conviction on his plea of guilty. 

The district court affirmed, holding that under Fay v. Noia, 

372 U.S. 391, 439 (1963), petitioner deliberately bypassed the 

opportunity to raise the issues on direct appeal. Petitioner 

first argues that Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), governs 

rather than Fay. Ake recognized that Oklahoma law requires the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to consider on direct appeal 

the merits of fundamental constitutional issues even where the 

issue was not preserved in the trial court. However, the Oklahoma 

fundamental-error exception applies only on direct appeal, as in 

Ake. It does not apply in Oklahoma post-conviction proceedings. 

See Jones v. State, 704 P.2d 1138 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1985). 

Instead, where a petitioner has waived or bypassed his right to 

take a direct appeal, he must establish cause for having failed to 

assert the issue in a direct appeal. Id. at 1140. We agree with 

the district court's conclusion that under Fay petitioner in this 

case deliberately bypassed his direct appeal. Because the state 

court clearly and expressly applied the procedural bar to 

petitioner's post-conviction claims, we do so as well. See Harris 

v. Reed, 109 S. Ct. 1038, 1042-43 (1989). 

Petitioner contends that he was not competent to make a 

deliberate and knowing determination to bypass his direct appeal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6103 Document: 010110041443 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 2 
The state post-conviction court specifically found to the 

contrary, however, and that finding is entitled to a presumption 

of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See Sumner v. Mata, 449 

U.S. 539 (1981); Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U.S. 111, 117 (1983)(per 

curiam). Moreover, the record reflects that the state trial court 

ordered petitioner examined for competency prior to his guilty 

plea. Although a competency hearing was not thereafter held, we 

may presume from the trial court's acceptance of petitioner's 

guilty plea that the court found petitioner competent. Cf. United 

States v. Crews, 781 F.2d 826, 833 (10th Cir. 1986). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6103 Document: 010110041443 Date Filed: 08/23/1990 Page: 3