Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05067/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wade Greely Lay
Appellant
Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Appellee
Anita Trammell
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

WADE GREELY LAY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

MAURICE WARRIOR,* Warden, OSP; 

OKLAHOMA STATE PENITENTIARY, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 15-5067 

(D.C. No. 4:15-CV-00353-TCK-PJC) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT†

_________________________________ 

Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

State prisoner Wade Lay appeals from the denial of his motions for the 

appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis (“ifp”) status. Exercising our 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 

* Under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Deputy Maurice Warrior is substituted for 

Anita Trammell as Interim Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, effective 

October 28, 2015. 

†

 After examining the briefs and 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 30, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5067 Document: 01019531125 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Page: 1 
2 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Mr. Lay’s 2005 Conviction and 2009 Habeas Petition 

In 2005, an Oklahoma jury convicted Mr. Lay of first degree murder and 

attempted robbery with a firearm. Lay v. Trammell, No. 08-CV-617-TCK-PJC, 2015 

WL 5838853, at *1-2 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 7, 2015). Mr. Lay had waived his right to 

counsel and proceeded pro se at trial. Id. at *2. He was sentenced to death for the 

murder conviction and 25 years in prison for the conviction of attempted robbery with 

a firearm. Id. 

In 2008, Mr. Lay initiated habeas proceedings in the Northern District of 

Oklahoma by filing a pro se motion for the appointment of counsel to assist in filing a 

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court granted his motion under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3599, which provides for appointment of counsel to indigent petitioners seeking 

federal habeas relief from a capital sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). The district 

court’s order appointed the Federal Public Defender’s Office to represent Mr. Lay. 

In 2009, Mr. Lay’s attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, contending, in relevant part, that Mr. Lay’s convictions were invalid because 

he was mentally incompetent to stand trial or to waive counsel. The district court 

denied Mr. Lay’s petition in October 2015 and granted a certificate of appealability as 

to certain issues raised in the petition. Lay, 2015 WL 5838853, at *56-57. Mr. Lay’s 

attorneys subsequently filed an appeal. 

Appellate Case: 15-5067 Document: 01019531125 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Page: 2 
3 

B. Mr. Lay’s 2015 Motions 

In June 2015, while his habeas petition was pending, Mr. Lay, acting pro se, 

initiated a separate action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. He filed motions (1) for the 

appointment of counsel and (2) to proceed ifp. The first motion alleged that his attorneys 

had fraudulently asserted he was mentally ill in the 2009 petition. It explained that Mr. 

Lay therefore sought the appointment of counsel to assist him in filing an accurate petition, 

which would assert additional grounds for relief absent from the earlier petition. 

The district court transferred this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) to the Northern 

District of Oklahoma, where Mr. Lay had been convicted.1

 The case was eventually 

assigned to the same judge who was presiding over Mr. Lay’s 2009 habeas petition, but the 

two cases were not consolidated. 

The district court denied both of Mr. Lay’s 2015 motions, finding no factual or legal 

basis for Mr. Lay’s assertion that the 2009 petition was fraudulent. It then terminated the 

case. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2), an indigent petitioner seeking federal habeas relief 

from a capital sentence is entitled to the appointment of counsel. A petitioner may move to 

 1

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), a state prisoner may file a habeas petition “in the 

district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court 

for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced 

him and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the 

application.” A court “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice 

may transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination.” 

Id.

Appellate Case: 15-5067 Document: 01019531125 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Page: 3 
4 

replace appointed counsel, see 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e), and a court may grant such a motion 

when substitution is in the “interests of justice.” Martel v. Clair, 132 S. Ct. 1276, 1281 

(2012). We construe Mr. Lay’s 2015 motion for the appointment of counsel as a motion to 

replace the attorneys who represent him in his habeas proceedings that were filed in 2009. 

“Because a trial court’s decision on substitution is so fact-specific, it deserves 

deference; a reviewing court may overturn it only for an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 1287. 

We also review the district court’s denial of ifp status for an abuse of discretion. Lister v. 

Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (10th Cir. 2005). 

We affirm the district court’s decisions denying both motions. Mr. Lay’s motion for 

the appointment of counsel asserted that his attorneys fraudulently alleged he was mentally 

ill in the 2009 petition. But as the district court concluded, Mr. Lay failed to provide any 

factual or legal basis for this allegation. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in determining that the substitution of counsel was not in the interests of justice 

or that a grant of ifp status was unwarranted. For these reasons, we affirm. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-5067 Document: 01019531125 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Page: 4