Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02130/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02130-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sammy Leroy McMurray
Appellant
Robert J. Tansy
Appellee

Document Text:

,. 

J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SAMMY LEROY MCMURRAY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT J. TANSY, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 1 4-1991 

ROBERT L. HOiCKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2130 

(D.C. No. 89-947-SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34. 1. 9. The cause is therefor.e 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This case is before us upon petitioner Sanuny Leroy McMurray's 

request for a certificate of probable cause. Petitioner, a state 

prisoner in New Mexico, sought under 28 u.s.c. S 2254 to challenge 

the constitutional validity of his judgment and sentence by the 

state for two counts of criminal sexual penetration in the second 

degree, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of 

* 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: 90-2130 Document: 010110076390 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 1 
' 

; aggravated assault with intent to commit a violent felony. 

Petitioner raised several issues in district court, disposed of by 

Magistrate's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition issued 

March 15, 1990, and adopted by the court by its order of May 17, 

1990. Petitioner's application on appeal is almost 

unintelligible. On close reading, however, we can discern four 

issues that petitioner raised before the state courts and that he 

contends involve violations of his constitutional rights. 

First, petitioner argues that he was convicted because of his 

race, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. His evidence is that he is black and the victim is 

white. Petitioner fails to present anything close to sufficient 

to prevail on such an argument. Petitioner must present specific 

evidence that "decisionma.kers in his case acted with 

discriminatory purpose." Mccleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292 

(1987) (emphasis in original). Discriminatory purpose cannot be 

inferred merely from the conviction of a black defendant for the 

rape of a white victim. Id. (application of death penalty to 

black defendant in crime with white victim not a violation of 

equal protection, even where defendant presented statistical study 

showing black defendants who killed white victims had greatest 

likelihood of receiving death penalty); see also Arlington Heights 

v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977); 

Akins v. Texas, 352 U.S. 398, 403-04 (1945). 

Second, petitioner argues that the state evidentiary rule 

providing that a rape victim's testimony need not be corroborated 

is unconstitutional. N.M. Stat. Ann. S 30-9-15 (1978). Contrary 

to petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court has held that a rape 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2130 Document: 010110076390 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 2 
. 

I 

\ victim's testimony is sufficient under due process requirements to 

; 

convict a defendant. Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 45 & n.21 

(1982). Any arguments that he makes about violation of federal 

separation of powers principles are nonsensical. 

~bird, petitioner contends that he was sentenced twice for 

the same crime, once to prison and then again to the forensic 

mental hospital. The record, though, shows that the state court, 

in the original sentencing, reduced petitioner's prison sentence 

by six years and substituted one to two years in the forensic 

hospital and two years probation. R. tab 9, ex. A, 2. 

petitioner's contention lacks factual basis. 

Thus, 

Finally, petitioner argues that the evidence was insufficient 

to convict him of two counts of criminal sexual penetration in the 

second degree. He states that the medical doctor who examined the 

victim testified that there was no penetration. If his assertion 

is true, petitioner has a non-frivolous Jackson v. Virginia issue. 

443 U.S. 307 (1979). The district court did not consider the 

issue, probably because of understandable difficulty in 

deciphering petitioner's habeas petition. We therefore grant the 

certificate of probable cause, and we remand to the district court 

for it to review the state trial record to determine if the 

evidence was sufficient to convict. Id. 

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2130 Document: 010110076390 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 3