Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06398/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06398-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Charles Curtis Harris
Appellant
H. N. Scott
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES CURTIS HARRIS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

Fl LED 

Unired States Coort of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit · 

APR 171991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

H. N. SCOTT and ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) 

State of Oklahoma, ) 

) 

Nos. 90-6398 

91-6020 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1346-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Charles Curtis Harris appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his prose petition for habeas corpus relief after 

finding that it was an abusive petition pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

* 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: 90-6398 Document: 010110034197 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
foll.§ 2254 Rule 9(b) (1988). This matter is before the court on 

appellant's application for a certificate of probable cause. See 

28 u.s.c. § 2253. We grant petitioner a certificate of probable 

cause and proceed to the merits of his claims. See Barefoot v. 

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). 

This habeas petition arises from Mr. Harris' convictions in 

the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, of concealing 

stolen property, possession of a firearm, and possession of a 

controlled substance with the intent to distribute. Mr. Harris 

was sentenced to three concurrent ten-year terms of imprisonment. 

The petitioner alleges here that he was denied due process and 

equal protection in the state court proceeding. He argues that 

his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with the 

intent to distribute was improperly enhanced under Oklahoma's 

habitual offender provision. 

Mr. Harris filed a prior petition for habeas corpus relief 

arising from the same convictions. See Harris v. Allen, No. CIV89-1176-R (W.D. Okla. Nov. 15, 1989). He argued in his previous 

petition that the state prosecutor breached the plea bargain 

agreement entered into by the parties. 

The state filed a motion in the district court to dismiss the 

current petition under Rule 9(b), contending that Mr. Harris 

failed to show sufficient reason why his allegation was not raised 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6398 Document: 010110034197 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2 
? 

in his prior petition for habeas corpus relief. In response, Mr.· 

Harris asserted that he had exhausted this claim in the state 

courts. The district court then found Mr. Harris' petition for 

habeas relief abusive. Though Mr. Harris filed two appeals in 

this court, one from the original order and a second from the 

district court's denial of his motion to amend or alter judgment, 

both challenge the district court's dismissal of his habeas 

petition on similar grounds. 

This court in Coleman v. Saffle, 869 F.2d 1377 (10th Cir. 

1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1835 (1990), examined the 

dismissal of a subsequent petition for an abuse of the writ. 

There, we required the subsequent habeas petitioner to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that "he or his counsel in the 

earlier petition did not intentionally abandon or inexcusably 

neglect the new claim" and that "he did not deliberately withhold 

the claim or at least has a good reason for not previously raising 

it." Coleman, 869 F.2d at 1380. 

Mr. Harris apparently argues here that he did not raise the 

claim before us in his previous petition because he was unaware of 

the specific legal grounds for the claim when it was filed. This 

argument, however, was not presented to the district court. Mr. 

Harris instead focused on his failure to appeal this issue to the 

state appellate court and contended that he had exhausted all 

state court remedies. "Rule 9(b) and 28 u.s.c. S 2244 mandate 

that the courts should dismiss subsequent petitions when the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6398 Document: 010110034197 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 3 
petitioner has offered no reasonable explanation why he did not 

raise his claim in the earlier application." Coleman, 869 F.2d at 

1380. It is clear from the record that petitioner offered no 

reasonable explanation before the district court. Moreover, Mr. 

Harris does not offer an explanation for why he reasonably should 

not have been aware of the legal basis for the claim at the time 

of his previous habeas petition. 

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6398 Document: 010110034197 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 4