Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04113/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Cook
Appellee
Ronald Dean Lancaster
Appellant

Document Text:

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT United Stat.ec; Co·.trt oi. Appeals 

Timth c-ire-,,jt 

RONALD DEAN LANCASTER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FEB 2 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 90-4113 

GERALD COOK, Warden, Utah 

State Prison, 

(D. C. No. 89-C-0035A) 

(D. Utah) 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Lancaster, an inmate in the state prison, appeals pro se 

the denial of his prose petition for habeas corpus relief. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 1 
-

Mr. Lancaster, while serving a sentence of five years to life 

in the Utah State Prison, attacked and injured a guard with a 

homemade knife. He was convicted, under Utah law, of aggravated 

assault by a prisoner. It is this conviction that Mr. Lancaster 

now challenges in his petition for habeas corpus, which he filed 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254. 

Mr. Lancaster appealed his conviction to the Utah Supreme 

Court, which affirmed the conviction in a unanimous opinion. 

State v. Lancaster, 765 P.2d 872 (1988). 

Mr. Lancaster raised six issues in his habeas petition: (1) 

pretrial amendment of the indictment failed to give him proper 

notice and thus deprived him of due notice; (2) evidence presented 

at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (3) his 

double jeopardy protection was violated; (4) his conviction was 

obtained with the use of perjured testimony; (5) prosecutorial 

misconduct; and (6) the statute under which he was convicted was 

unconstitutional in that it was overbroad. The district court, 

after referring the issues to a magistrate for a report and 

recommendation, decided all issues adversely to Mr. Lancaster. 

On appeal to this court, Mr. Lancaster raises nine issues: 

(1) denial of a full and fair hearing, both in the Utah Supreme 

Court and the United States District Court; (2) defective 

information; (3) improper amendment of the information; (4) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 2 
judicial bias in the state district court; (5) prosecutorial 

misconduct in using perjured testimony; (6) prosecutorial 

misconduct for withholding exculpatory evidence; (7) insufficient 

evidence to sustain the conviction; (8) the constitutionality of 

the Utah statute; and (9) he was denied the right to confront a 

medical witness. 

Considering Mr. Lancaster's first claim, that the district 

court denied him a full and fair hearing, an evidentiary hearing 

is not necessary if the questions presented can be answered from 

the record before the district court. In the case before us, the 

record amply supports the decision of the district court. 

Considering the charge that the Utah Supreme Court denied Mr. 

Lancaster a full and fair hearing, this was neither raised before 

nor decided by the district court. Therefore, we will not decide 

this issue on appeal. United States v. Mitchell, 783 F.2d 971, 

975 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 860 (1986). We note that 

Mr. Lancaster claims that the issues he raised before the Utah 

Supreme Court were "distorted, misrepresented and therefore never 

fully and fairly raised" and all of his claims were not addressed. 

Had Mr. Lancaster properly raised this issue, his claim would have 

been denied as he failed to show any specific facts as to how his 

claims were distorted and misrepresented and which of his claims 

were not addressed. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 3 
• We have considered each of Mr. Lancaster's remaining 

arguments and have considered the law he has cited. We remain 

unpersuaded and in substantial agreement with the district court. 

The certificate of probable cause is granted. 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate's 

reports dated December 28, 1989 and June 28, 1990, and the orders 

of the district court dated March 19, 1990 and July 18, 1990, 

copies of all of which are attached hereto. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 4 
. ' 

'I 

,. ·"' 

f"\'( -·····--·---- p., ., ,.. , . , , ' I .._ / 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Dr'STRICT OF UTAH 

CENTRAL DMSION 

RONALD DEAi"J LANCASTER, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

GERALD COOK, Warden, 

Utah State Prison, 

Respondent. 

,~, l"' ,, ••-s, _, I q, ,......,, • £- • • ·• , .r ; ·! , 

U~J,u>~I '>>1,·t,('.J ' .:-'1/Ju~· -( i: 1.\. . fo!,i, ·. ; . ·'.,._ .. ' .' 0 Pμ:,?1.J,1 

Case No. 89-C-'3'5;A2 · :, , .. . ,, 

1 ~ AUG 21990 

= J :; .. cuiPR,., .. ·· Il' · -- 0 ~f{'.:.• · "1 L,. .D. 0 ECKER 

Clerk 

The petitioner, Ronald Dean Lancaster, an inmate at the Utah State Prison, fi. 

a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his 

conviction of Aggravated Assault by a Prisoner in the Utah state courts. The Utah 

Supreme Court unanimously affirmed his conviction. State v. Lancaster, 765 P.2d 872 

(l 988). The court referred the case to the United States Magistrate pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). The respondent moved to dismiss the petition claiming that the 

petitioner was not entitled to the relief he demanded. The court received the Magistrate's 

Report and Recommendation on December 28, 1989, and the petitioner timely filed 

objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. 

The petitioner raises six objections to the Magistrate's recommendation that the 

case be dismissed. First, petitioner argues that the Magistrate failed to address whether 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 5 
the statute under which the petitioner was convicted, Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5 (2), 

is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Second, the petitioner claims that the 

information did not specifically charge him with an offense. Third, in a related argument, 

petitioner claims that he was convicted on a defective information. Petitioner was 

originally charged with a capital felony under section 76-5-103.5 (2) (b) which requires 

serious bodily injury to the victim, but the state court judge amended the information to 

charge a first degree felony under section 76-5-103.5 (2)(a), which does not require 

serious bodily injury as an element. Fourth, petitioner alleges that the evidence 

introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Finally, in his fifth and sixth 

objections petitioner claims prosecutorial misconduct in that the prosecutor knowingly 

used perjured testimony to convict the petitioner. 

As to the first claim, that the statute under which the petitioner was convicted is 

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the court finds that neither the responder 

Motion to Dismiss or the Magistr9te's Report and Recommendation squarely addre 

these issues. Therefore, the petition, in so far as it raises these issues, should not be 

dismissed. 

As to the remaining infirmities petitioner alleges, however, the court is persuaded 

that the Magistrate adequately addressed each of these grounds. Moreover, the court has 

carefully reviewed the file, the state court transcripts, and the Utah Supreme Court's 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 6 
decision affirming the petitioner's conviction where many of the arguments petitioner 

raises here were also raised, argued, and rejected. In addition, the court has examined 

the case law cited by the Magistrate and by the respondent in his Memorandum. In all 

instances, the court finds, in accordance with the Magistrate, that the petitioner has not 

adequately stated any valid constitutional infirmity. Therefore, the court hereby adopts 

as its own the findings contained in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. 

The petition is ordered dismissed in all respects except for the claim that Utah 

Code Ann. § 76-5-103(2)(b) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Consistent with 

the general order of reference the court previously signed on January 18, 1989, the 

is hereby referred back to the Magistrate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this _j_!}_ day of March, 1990. 

BY THE COURT: 

JW~:t~ 

Aldon J. Anderson 

United States Seriior Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 7 
Re : 2:89-cv-00035 

un ~~e d States District Court 

for the 

District of Utah 

March 20, 1990 

**MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK ** 

en 

True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the 

f ollowing: 

Ronald Dean Lancaster 

Utah State Prison 

P.O. Box 250 

Dra per , UT 84020 

Dan R. Larsen, Esq. 

Utah State Attorney General's Office 

236 State Capitol 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

Sandra Sjogren, Esq. 

Ut a h State Attorney General's Office 

236 State Capitol 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

Ronald N. Boyce, Magistrate 

350 South Main , Room 260 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-2180 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 8 
.. - - -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FOR THE DISTRJCT OF UTAH 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

RONALD DEAN LANCASTER., ~·~~ c::/fj 

~·- t~· -i_ 

t 

:;.~ .,• 

Petitioner, Case No. 89-C-35 A 

vs. T;' ' 7 ·1 f :-' __: -,--, ~ ~ ~ , c -

ORDER UrsJl•.·ci ;-:,~::,~;/;:}~~' :):' .\\J:,c·c, Jr, 

GERALD COOK, Warden, 

Utah State Prison, i} 19. gn ,-- t I i ' i.../ 

Respondent. 

·-~c ,r:~ :·~· rt~'r ~-- --· ::fi:~_: f~c ~~ :1t -~ I • 

! ,-·1-,: ... ! ... 

I. BACKGROUND 

The petitioner, Ronald Dean Lancaster, an inmate at the Utah State Prison, filed 

a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his 

conviction in the Utah state courts, of Aggravated Assaul t by a Prisoner, in violation of 

Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5(2)(a). The Utah Supreme Court unanimously affirmed his 

conviction. State v. Lancaster, 765 P.2d 872 (1988). The court referred the case to the 

United States Magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). The magistrate 

submitted a report and recommendation on December 28, 1989, and the petitioner timely 

filed objections to the report and recommendation. The court adopted as its ov:n, the 

fmdings contained in the· magistrate's report and recommendation and ordered the 

(\ 

\ 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 9 
petition dismissed in all respects except for the c:birn th2t Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5 

is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The coun fo und that neither the respondent's 

Motion to Dismiss nor the magisrrare's report and recommendation addressed petitioner's 

claim that the stature is unconst;tutionally vague and overbroad. The court aaain 0 

referred the matter to the magistrate under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) for additional 

consideration of this claim. The magistrate ~ubmitted his report and recommendatior: 

pursuant to this second reference on June 23, 1990. The magistrate recommended that 

petitioner's claim of unconstitutionality be dismissed and that respondent's motion to 

dismiss the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted. Subsequently, petitioner filed 

an objection to the magistrate's. report ;-,. nd recommendation. 

Before the court are petitioner's claim that Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5 is 

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and respondent's motion to dismiss the petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Having thoroughly reviewed this matter, the court is now 

""0 Dar 0 r1 ,.,..., n,l.o r• .._., ,._U. \.V U.4.1....• 

IT. DISCUSSION 

Mr. Lancaster claims that Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5 is w1constitutionally vague 

and overbroad. The court will discuss the issues of vagueness and overbreadth separately 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 10 
548, 579 (1973). Although the Utah Supreme Court has never specifically interpreted 

Utah's aggravated assault by a prisoner statute, its elements are obvious. It is merely 

aggravated assault . with the additional element that the defendant be a prisoner. The 

Utah Supreme court has defined the statutory element of aggravated assault, Utah Code 

Ann. § 76-5-103 as being: 

1. Commission of assault: 

2. Intentionally causing serious bodily injury to another; or 

3. Using a deadly weapon or such means or force likely to produce death 

or serious bodily injury. 

State v. Elliott, 641 P.2d 122, 124 (1982). The Utah Supreme Court has also defined 

assault as: 

1. An attempt 

2. With unlawful force and violence; 

3. To do bodily injury to another. 

Id. It is clear that the petitioner was properly charged under Utah Code Ann. § 7e, 

103.5, in that he committed aggravated assault while a prisoner. Furthermore, the co· _ 

is persuaded that an ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can understand 

and comply with the statute. The court is convinced that the report and recommendation 

has adequately addressed the ''vagueness" issue and that it is accurate in all essential 

respects. Therefore, the court hereby adopts as its own the findings contained in the 

magistrate's report and recommendation regarding petitioner's claim of statutory 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 11 
vagueness. 

B. Overbreadth 

Petitioner further claims that the Utah aggravated assault by a prisoner statute, 

Utah Code Ann. section 76-5-103 .5 is unconstitutionally over broad in that it "allows the 

state prosecutor to arbitrarily select the subsection under which to prosecute any given 

first or second degree state prisoner." Notice of Petitioner's Objection to Magistrate 

Boyce's June 28, 1990 Report And Recommendation to Dismiss at 8-9. After reviev.ring 

Utah Code Ann. section 76-5-103.5, the relevant case law concerning this issue, and t; 

analysis of both the magistr::: te in his report and recommendation and of petitioner in 1: 

memorandum, the court is convinced that the statute is not overbroad. The magistrate's 

report and recommendation properly characterizes petitioner's claim not as an issue of 

overbreadth, but as an issue of prosecutorial discretion. Such an exercise of prosecutorial 

discretion is not unconstitutional. The court is convinced that the report and 

recommendation has adequately addressed this issue and that it is accurate in all essential 

respects. Therefore, the court hereby adopts as its own the findings contair1ed in the 

Magistrate's Report and Recommendation concerning petitioner's claim of stan:tory 

overbreadth. 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 12 
ITI. CONC .USION 

The court finds that the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation is accurat•. ~ in 

all essential respects, and thus adopts as its ovvn the findings contained in the report 2.nd 

recommendation. Therefore, petitioner's claim of unconstitutionality is dismissed and 

respondent's motion to dismiss the petitio;i for Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted . 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this _}_L day of July, 1990. 

BY THE COURT: 

Aldon J. Ar1 soil 

United Stat s Senior Judge 

- 6 -

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 13 
District o f Ut2.h 

J1:1y 19 , 1990 

,,-, ....... , .. __ \.- UL.. _ ·-

* i: l·L\ILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * ;, 

~•:e : 2 : 89 -cv-00 0 35 

T~ue and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the 

fol lowing: 

Rona ld Dean Lancaster 

P.O . Box 250 

Draper, UT 84020 

Dan R. Larsen, Esq. 

Utah State Attorney General ' s Offi ce 

236 State Capitol 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

Sandra Sjogren, Esq . Utah Sta te Attorney General's Office 

23 6 Sta~e Capitol 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 14 
FiLED 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF U~AGlSTRATE 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

,/ 

~ DEC 2 CZ 1989 

DE" IJTY CLERK 

RONALD DEAN LANCASTER, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

GERALD COOK, Warden, 

Ut ah State Prison, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 89-C-35 A 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Petitioner, Ronald Lancaster, an inmate of the Utah State 

Prison, filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 

u .s.c. § 2254. The petitioner is challenging his conviction of 

Aggravated Assault by a Prisoner in the Utah state courts. The 

conviction was unanimously affirmed by the Utah Supreme court. 

State v. Lancaster, 765 P.2d 872 (1988). The matter was referred 

to the magistrate under 28 u.s.c. § 636(b) (1) (B). This report 

and recommendation is submitted to the District Court pursuant to 

the reference. 

While serving a five-year to life sentence in the Utah State 

Prison for second degree murder, the petitioner attacked a guard 

with a homemade knife. The guard sustained a laceration to his 

arm (requiring eight stitches) and a minor injury to one leg. 

I nitially the petitioner was mistakenly charged under Utah Code 

Ann. § 76-5-103.5(2) (b), a capital felony, for assaults resulting 

in serious bodily injury. The charge was later amended by Judge 

\\ 

ORIGINAL 

/\ 

:~ .. 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 15 
Timothy R. Hanson in the Third District Court to a first degree 

felony under Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5 (2) (a) which is properly 

applied where no serious bodily injury is incurred. 

The petitioner raises five issues in his petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus. First, the petitioner claims that the pretrial amendment of the indictment failed to give him proper 

notice of the charge against him, and violated his right to due 

process. The petitioner's claim is based on the allegation that 

the amendment of the indictment changed the offense to one which 

he was not prepared to meet. 

With regard to amending the indictment, "an indictment is 

generally sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense 

charged, putting the defendant on fair notice of the charge 

against which he must defend, and if it enables the defendant to 

assert acquittal or conviction in order to avoid being placed 

twice in jeopardy for the same offense." Hamling v. United 

states, 418 U.S. 87 {1974); United States v. Staggs, 881 F.2d 

1527 (10th Cir. 1989). The change in the indictment from a 

capital felony to a first degree felony reflected only a 

reduction in the penalty, it did not change any substantive 

elements of the crime. The offense as amended was still based 

upon the exactly the same factual allegations which were 

contained in the information. The petitioner cannot be said to 

have been prejudiced and has shown none where the amendment to 

the indictment served only to correct a technical deficiency, and 

had no effect on what he would have to meet at trial. All of the 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 16 
essential elements were stated in the information. Russell v. 

United states, 369 U.S. 749 (1962). Applying the above 

principles to petitioner's case, the amendment to the indictment 

did not violate the petitioner's right to due process. 1 

Second, the petitioner claims that the evidence was not 

sufficient to support his aggravated assault conviction. Where a 

challenge is made to a state court conviction under 28 u.s.c. § 

2254 on grounds of insufficiency of evidence, an applicant is 

entitled to relief only if it is found that no rational trier of 

fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on 

the evidence presented at trial. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 

307 (1979). 

In petitioner's case the evidence had to establish the 

elements of the offense as provided in Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-

103.5(2) .

2 Under that provision, the evidence must establish 

that a prisoner, while serving a sentence for a first degree 

felony, committed aggravated assault as defined Utah Code Ann. § 

Petitioner cites two cases which involve a variance from 

the indictment returned by a grand jury. Stirone v. United 

States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960). These are not relevant to this case 

since petitioner was not entitled to grand jury indictment. 

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1984); Lemwoon v. Oregon, 

229 U.S. 586 (1913) (no federal constitutional right to a 

preliminary hearing). 

part: 

2

• Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5(2) provides in pertinent 

(2) Any prisoner serving a sentence for a 

felony of the first degree who commits 

aggravated assault is guilty of: 

(a) a felony of the first degree if no 

serious bodily injury was caused; ..• 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 17 
76-5-103. 3 The fact that the petitioner was a prisoner serving a 

sentence for second degree murder at the time of the offense was 

conclusively established and not disputed. The evidence 

presented by the prosecution to prove aggravated assault included 

testimony of the victim, testimony of three witness that 

corroborated the victim's testimony, numerous photographs of the 

victim's injuries, and a photograph of the weapon. Based on the 

evidence in the record, it cannot be said that no rational trier 

of fact could have found the petitioner guilty of the offense 

charged. This court may not consider the evidence de novo. 

Jackson v. Virginia, supra. Therefore, the petitioner's claim of 

insufficient evidence to support his conviction of Aggravated 

Assault by a Prisoner must fail. 

Third, the petitioner claims that his right against double 

jeopardy was violated. The petitioner contends that the 

prosecution's introduction into evidence of his 1978 murder 

conviction placed him twice in jeopardy for the same offense. 

This claim is based on a misapplication of the right against 

double jeopardy. The right against double jeopardy only 

3

• Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103 provides in pertinent part: 

(1) A person commits aggravated assault if he 

commits assault as defined in section 76-5-

102 and: 

(b) He uses a deadly weapon or such 

means or force likely to produce death or 

serious bodily injury. 

An assault is defined in§ 76-5-102(1) (a) as "an attempt, 

with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily injury to another; II 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 18 
precludes a person from being prosecuted twice for the same 

offense. See, Jones v. Thomas, __ U.S. __ , 109 s. Ct. 2522 

(1989). The use of the petitioner's prior conviction was only 

used to prove a necessary element of the charge of Aggravated 

Assault by a Prisoner. Petitioner was not prosecuted twice or 

punished twice. such use of prior convictions does not violate 

the right against double jeopardy. In United States v. Vigil, 

818 F.2d 738 (10th Cir. 1987) the use of prior felony convictions 

to prove illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was 

held not to violate the right against double jeopardy. See also 

Duffel v. Dutton, 785 F.2d 131 (6th Cir. 1986); Baker v. 

Duckworth, 752 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1985). c.f. United States v. 

DeFrancisco, 449 U.S. 117, 139 (1980). Applying the above 

principles to the case at bar the petitioner's right against 

double jeopardy was not violated. 

Fourth, the petitioner claims he was convicted by the use of 

perjured testimony given by the victim. This claim, however, is 

not supported by the record. The petitioner brought forth no 

extrinsic evidence to show the victim perjured himself. In 

addition, the victim's testimony was corroborated by other 

witnesses. See Fillmore v. Crisp, 480 F.Supp. 310 (D.C. W.D. 

Okla. 1978). 

Where a petitioner for habeas corpus fails to support a 

claim of perjury with extrinsic evidence, no constitutional error 

exists. See, Talamante v. Romero, 620 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1980). 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 19 
Applying the above principle to the instant case, this claim must 

fail. Hawkins v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Finally, the petitioner charges the respondent with 

prosecutorial misconduct. The petitioner claims that the 

prosecutor intentionally withheld the medical report filled out 

by the physician who treated the victim's wounds. The trial 

record indicates, however, that the medical report was used at 

trial by the petitioner in an attempt to impeach the victim's 

testimony. The medical report was not used for any other purpose 

by either side. Therefore, there is no merit to petitioner's 

claim of any withholding of evidence from the petitioner. United 

States v. George, 778 F.2d 556 (10th Cir. 1985); United States v. 

Aigevobolle, 827 F.2d 664 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Before a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a 

petitioner for alleged prosecutorial misconduct, it must be shown 

that such misconduct resulted in the denial of a fair trial. 

See, Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986). In view of the 

fact that the petitioner was able to utilize the medical report 

for its intended purpose, ie. impeachment of the victim's 

testimony, the alleged misconduct of the prosecutor was not of 

such magnitude as to amount to the denial of a fair trial. 

Therefore, this claim must also fail. 

For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that 

respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus be granted. IT IS so RECOMMENDED. 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 20 
Copies of the foregoing report and recommendation are being 

mailed to the parties. They are hereby notified of their right 

to file objections hereto within 10 days from the receipt hereof. 

,; <y"/t:" 

DATED this Ao ' day of December,~ 1989. / 

Rona· d N. Boyce ' 

United States Magistrate 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the foregoing 

Report and Recommendation to Ronald Dean Lancaster, P.O. Box 250, 

Draper, Utah 84020; and to Dan R. Larsen, 236 state Capitol, Salt 

Lake City, Utah 84114, this d~~ day of December, 1989. 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 21 
F-L. l .,~:.1 · - ·:--:0 · A 

C{ .!1 :~ ,c-·.-r--,•r.-Y ·- :.i · f"';.; 

JUN 21 1990 

''Y----

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

RONALD DEAN LANCASTER, } 

} 

Petitioner, } Case No. 89-C-0035 A 

} 

vs. } 

} 

GERALD COOK, Warden, } REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

} 

Respondent. } 

Petitioner, Ronald Dean Lancaster, an inmate at the Utah 

State Prison, filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 

u.s.c. § 2254. The petitioner is challenging his conviction in 

Utah State courts, of Aggravated Assault by a Prisoner. The 

matter was referred to the magistrate under 28 u.s.c. § 636 

(b} (1) (B}. A report and recommendation was submitted to the 

District Court pursuant to reference of December 28, 1989. The 

District Court adopted as its own, the findings contained in the 

magistrate's Report & Recommendation and ordered the petition 

dismissed in all respects except for the claim that Utah Code 

Ann. § 76-5-103.5 (1973} is unconstitutionally vague and 

overbroad. The matter was again referred to the magistrate under 

28 u.s.c. § 636 (b} (l} (B} for additional consideration of this 

claim. This report and recommendation is submitted to the 

District Court pursuant to this reference. 

ORIGINAL 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 22 
The facts show petitioner attacked a guard with a homemade 

knife while serving a five-year to life sentence in the Utah 

State Prison for second degree murder. The guard suffered minor 

injury to his leg and more severe injury to his arm requiring 

eight stitches. Petitioner was charged under Utah Code Ann. § 

76-5-103.5 (d) (a), a first degree felony. 

A. Vagueness 

The Utah aggravated assault by a prisoner statute, Utah Code 

Ann. § 76--5-103.5 (1973), reads: 

1. Any prisoner, not serving a sentence for a 

felony of the first degree, who commits aggravated 

assault is guilty of a felony of the second 

degree. 

2. Any prisoner serving a sentence for a 

felony of the first degree who commits 

aggravated assault is guilty of: 

a. A felony of the first degree if no serious 

bodily injury was caused; or 

b. A capital felony if serious bodily injury was 

intentionally caused. 

It has never been specifically interpreted by the Utah Supreme 

Court. However, the Utah courts have, upon numerous occasions, 

interpreted the Utah aggravated assault statute, Utah Code Ann. 

§ 76-5-103. The aggravated assault by a prisoner statute is 

merely aggravated assault with the additional element that the 

defendant be a prisoner. 

The Utah Supreme Court in State v. Elliot, 641 P.2d 122 

(Utah 1982), has defined the statutory elements of the offense of 

aggravated assault, Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103 (1987) as being: 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 23 
1. Commission of assault; 

2. Intentionally causing serious bodily injury 

to another; 

or 

3. Using a deadly weapon or such means or force 

likely to produce death or serious bodily 

injury. 

In State v. Garcia, 744 P.2d 1029, (Utah App. 1987), the 

court made very clear in its decision that a person commits 

aggravated assault if he commits assault, as defined by Utah Code 

Ann. § 76-5-102 (1978) and: 

(a) He intentionally causes serious bodily injury to 

another: 

(b) He uses a deadly weapon or such means or 

force likely to produce death or serious 

bodily injury. 

Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-102 (1978) defines assault as: 

(a) An attempt, with unlawful force or violence, 

to do bodily injury to another; or 

(b) A threat, accompanied by a show of immediate 

force or violence, to do bodily injury to 

another. 

See also, State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 440 (Utah 1986) (assault 

becomes aggravated when the actor intentionally causes serious 

bodily injury to another or, alternatively, when the actor uses a 

deadly weapon or such means or force likely to produce death or 

serious bodily injury); State v. Oldroyd, 685 P.2d 551, (Utah 

1984) (in order to commit that crime [aggravated assault], an 

individual must use a deadly weapon while committing simple 

assault ... ); State v. Bradley. 752 P.2d 874 (Utah 

1985) (aggravated assault statute interdicts the use of "a deadly 

weapon or such means or force likely to produce death or serious 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 24 
bodily harm"). 

The other terminology of the aggravated assault statute has 

also been interpreted by the Utah courts. See, e.g., State v. 

Velarde, 734 P.2d 449 (Utah 1986) (using a means or force likely 

to produce death or serious bodily injury is the equivalent of 

committing an act clearly dangerous to human life); and State v. 

Garcia, 744 P.2d 1029 (Utah App. 1987) (the "another" referred to 

in sections 76-5-102 and -103 is the victim of the assault, not 

any other person). 

Petitioner claims that Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5 is 

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Statutory provisions are 

not void for vagueness if they unambiguously specify the activity 

prescribed. United State v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 115 

(1979); Babbit v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 

289 (1979); Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima 

Indian Nation, 434 U.S. 463 (1979); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 

(1974). If a criminal statute gives a person of ordinary 

intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is 

forbidden, then the statute is not void for vagueness. United 

States v. Harris, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954); Conally v. General 

Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391-393 (1926); Papachristou v. 

Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972). The 10th Circuit 

evaluates the constitutional validity of a statute challenged as 

vague by ascertaining whether "the ordinary person exercising 

ordinary common sense" can understand and comply with the 

standard. United States v. Hines, 696 F.2d 722, 727 (10th Cir. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 25 
1982); United states v. Homa, 608 F.2d 407 (10th Cir. 1979). 

The provisions of the aggravated assault by a prisoner 

statute unambiguously specify the activity prescribed. An 

ordinary intelligent individual is able to determine that the 

conduct of assaulting a prison guard with a knife is the conduct 

prohibited in Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5. The interpretations 

of the Utah Supreme Court give additional clarity and are 

properly considered in determining whether the statute is vague. 

United states v. Broncheau. 597 F.2d 1260 (9th cir. 1979); Gray 

v. Lucas, 677 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1982). The notice requirements 

of the Due Process Clause are satisfied, therefore the statute at 

issue is not void for vagueness. 

Petitioner also claims that this statute is "broad" in that 

it selectively allows the state to prosecute a defendant on 

either a capital first felony or a non-capital first degree 

felony. However, this is not an overbreadth issue but one of 

prosecutorial discretion. 1 Opportunities for discretionary 

action are inherent in the prosecution of criminal cases. Gregg 

v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, (1976). The United States Supreme 

Court has long recognized that when an act violates more than one 

1 Overbreadth issues under federal constitutional standards 

have been limited to the first amendment issues by the United 

States Supreme Court. "And outside the limited First Amendment 

context, a criminal statute may not be attached as overbroad. See 

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 s.ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed. 1113 

(1982) "· Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 268 n.18 (1984). See 

Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, (1940); H.L. v. Matheson, 450 

U.S. 398 (1981); Massachusetts v. Oakes, 109 s.ct. 2633, 37-38 

(O'Connor J.) (1989); Monoghan, Overbreadth, 1981 s.ct. Rev. 1,3. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 26 
criminal statute, the government may prosecute under either as 

long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants. 

United States v. Batchelder, supra, (citing United States v. 

Beacon Brass Co., 344 U.S. 43, 45-46 (1952); Rosenberg v. United 

states, 346 U.S. 273, 294 {1953); et al.). Whether to prosecute 

and what charges to file or bring before a court are decisions 

that rest in the prosecutor's discretion and do not make a 

prosecution unbridled and overbroad. The petitioner argues that 

the prosecution is relying on a vague statute which allows for 

arbitrary and capricious application. This is untrue since the 

Utah legislature has clearly defined the provisions of Utah Code 

Ann. § 76-5-103, and that statute has been given interpretive 

meaning by the Utah courts. The United States Supreme Court has 

held that difficulties with vagueness of a statutory provision 

can be alleviated and overcome by judicial narrowing of the 

clause in issue. See Boos v. Barry. 485 U.S. 312 (1987); Posadas 

de Puerto Rico Asso. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 

(1986). The legislature has defined the crime, not the 

prosecutor. The prosecutor's discretion has been channeled by 

the legislature, and imposition of the charge under this statute 

is circumscribed by the legislative language. Therefore, the 

construction of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103.5 (1973) is not vague 

and does not allow the prosecutor to arbitrarily select the 

subsection under which to prosecute any given defendant. 

For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that 

petitioner's claim of unconstitutionality be dismissed and that 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 27 
,. 

respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus be granted in its entirety. 

Copies of the foregoing report and recommendation are being 

mailed to the parties. They are hereby notified of their right 

to file objections hereto within ten days from the receipt 

hereof. 

DATED this day of June, 1990. 

,./l 

/ / 

R'6rtald N. Boyce 

United States Magistrate 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the foregoing 

Report and Recommendation to Ronald Dean Lancaster, P.O. Box 250, 

Draper, UT 84020 and Dan Larsen, Asst. Attorney General, 236 

State Capitol Bldg., Salt Lake City, UT 84101 on this ~&a_ay 

of June, 1990. 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-4113 Document: 010110103804 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 28