Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06062/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06062-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Everett Lamont Carr
Appellant
R. Michael Cody
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

Uaited States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

EVERETT LAMONT CARR, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

R. MICHAEL CODY, Warden, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG 11991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6062 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-925-R) 

(W. D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner Everett L. Carr's motion 

for a right to proceed without payment of fees and for a 

certificate of probable cause is granted. 

Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254. Petitioner was 

convicted in Oklahoma state court, pursuant to a guilty plea, 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6062 Document: 010110130183 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 1 
attempted robbery with firearms and shooting with intent to kill. 

He now asserts that his constitutional rights were violated 

because he was convicted, in essence, twice for the same offense. 

He asserts that the shooting was a part of the robbery. He also 

alleges that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily entered. 

We have examined the record and the authorities that 

petitioner relies on, and we AFFIRM the district court's denial of 

the petition for substantially the reasons set forth in the 

1 district court's memorandum opinion entered January 29, 1991. 

1 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

This disposition moots the need to consider petitioner's "Writ 

of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Relief by Reasons of Default & 

Denial of Due Process" filed directly with this court on July 19, 

1991, based upon the erroneous assumption that petitioner is 

entitled to judgment unless respondent filed a response to 

petitioner's appellate brief. The respondent filed notice with 

this court that he would not file a response brief, in which event 

he is entitled to rely upon the district court's disposition and 

the filings in that court, but may not be heard in oral argument 

except by permission of the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 3l(c). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6062 Document: 010110130183 Date Filed: 08/01/1991 Page: 2