Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07065/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07065-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Appellee
Lawrence Kowalski Roberts
Appellant
H. N. "Sonny" Scott
Appellee

Document Text:

' FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States ~ .!rt ~f Appeals 1',..,, ... ~.-.. . ... 't,...,,, ~, ~ 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

LAWRENCE KOWALSKI ROBERTS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

H. N. "SONNY" SCOTT, and ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JUN 18 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-7065 

(D.C. No. 90-474-S) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, BRORBY, and EBEL, 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 . 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This matter is before the court on petitioner's motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and application for a 

certificate of probable cause (IFP/CPC motion). To be entitled to 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-7065 Document: 010110128155 Date Filed: 06/18/1991 Page: 1 
I the requested relief, petitioner must advance a rational argument 

on the law and facts demonstrating that the issue asserted on this 

appeal deserves further proceedings. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 

U.S. 880 (1983); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). 

On appeal from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 u.s.c. § 2254, petitioner asks this court to 

determine "[w]hether or not Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.4 (1974), 

regarding punishment for second degree murder. and mandating 

an indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years to life 

is to be strictly construed and such sentence 

imprisonment, 

imposed in 

accordance with the limitations of Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 353 

(1971)?" IFP/CPC Motion at 2. Because section 353 provides that 

the minimum term of an indeterminate sentence "may be less than, 

but shall not be more than, one-third (1/3) of the maximum 

sentence imposed," petitioner contends that his indeterminate 

sentence of ten years to life under section 701.4 should be 

limited by section 353 to an indeterminate term of ten to thirty 

years. IFP/CPC Motion at 3; see also White v. State, 774 P.2d 

1072 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989)("Since one-third of a life sentence 

cannot be calculated, trial court may not set an 

indeterminate sentence where a life sentence is the maximum."). 

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals recently spoke 

directly to the question raised herein and its unequivocal answer 

was that "the specific provisions for the punishment of second 

degree murder in [section] 701.4 controls [sic] over the general 

sentencing provisions of Section 353." Bowman v. State, 789 P.2d 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-7065 Document: 010110128155 Date Filed: 06/18/1991 Page: 2 
• 

I 

631, 632 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990)(upholding indeterminate sentence 

of ten years to life imposed pursuant to section 701.4); see also 

Murray v. Cowley, 913 F.2d 832, 833-34 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. 

denied, 111 S. Ct. 991 (1991). In light of the state court's 

interpretation of the pertinent statutory provisions in Bowman, to 

which we must defer, see, e.g., Cordova v. Romero, 614 F.2d 1267, 

1269 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 851 (1980); Redford v. 

Smith, 543 F.2d 726, 732 (10th Cir. 1976), petitioner is 

foreclosed from obtaining any relief in this action and further 

proceedings are, accordingly, not warranted. 

Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and application for a certificate of probable cause are DENIED, 

and this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-7065 Document: 010110128155 Date Filed: 06/18/1991 Page: 3