Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06102/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Champion
Appellee
Robert H. Henry
Appellee
William Alexander May
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM ALEXANDER MAY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

APR 2 3 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

RON CHAMPION; ROBERT H. HENRY, ) 

Attorney General, State of Oklahoma,) 

) 

No. 90-6102 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1889-P) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argume nt 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 William A. May brought an action pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. § 2255 for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his 

state court conviction that had resulted from his ple a of guilty. 

We grant the petitioner's request for a certificate of probable 

cause. 

* 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: 90-6102 Document: 010110243041 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 1
In the district court petitioner raised nine grounds for 

relief, which the court consolidated into six. On appeal 

petitioner raises only two contentions: that his constitutional 

rights were violated (1) when he was not advised of his right to 

appeal at the time of the hearing on his motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea, and (2) when he was denied assistance of counsel at 

that same hearing. The district court found that petitioner had 

been advised in writing at the time he entered his guilty plea of 

his right to appeal, and that there is no constitutional right to 

counsel in connection with a post-conviction motion to withdraw a 

guilty plea. The district court analyzed these grounds correctly, 

and we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the 

district court's memorandum opinion of February 6, 1990. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6102 Document: 010110243041 Date Filed: 04/23/1992 Page: 2