Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07034/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deronda Charles Kight
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

ONI'l'BD STATBS COURT OF APPEALS United State5 Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DERONDA CHARLES KIGHT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Defendant-Appellee. 

FEB 2 2 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-7034 

(D.C. No. 89-519-C) 

(E. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SBYHOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

A£ter 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

We grant the appellant's application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

FACTS 

The appellant, Deronda Charles Kight, appeals from the 

District Court's dismissal of his 28 u.s.c. S 2255 habeas 

* 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. lOth Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7034 Document: 01019728211 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 1 
petition. The appellant pled guilty to a charge of mail fraud and 

received a sentence of three years by the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The three year 

sentence was to be served consecutively to a fifteen year sentence 

Kight was serving for an earlier robbery conviction to which he 

had pled guilty on September 27, 1987 in the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Kight argues 

that he was indicted for the mail fraud charge in violation of an 

agreement reached between Kight and the United States. Kight 

alleges that he agreed to plead guilty to the robbery charge and 

that he proffered his assistance to the United States to assist in 

obtaining a mail fraud conviction against his co-conspirators in 

exchange for the United States' promise not to file charges 

against him relating to the mail fraud crime. 

Kight raises three basic issues for this court to consider: 

(1) was the United States' efforts to seek a conviction for his 

participation in the mail fraud scheme and was his consecutive 

three year sentence for mail fraud in violation of the purported 

plea agreement between the defendant and the United States; (2) 

did the court below erroneously refuse to provide alleged "Brady 

Material" to him; and (3) was the advice he received from his 

attorney relating to his decision to plead guilty to the mail 

fraud charge so deficient as to have denied him right to counsel? 

DISCUSSION 

We have scrutinized the record and are convinced that Kight 

did not raise his "breach of agreement" argument in the court 

below. Therefore, we will not consider this issue. See Chase v. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7034 Document: 01019728211 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 2 
Crisp, 523 F.2d 595, 596 (lOth Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 u.s. 

497 ( 1976). 

Likewise, we decline to review Kight's ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim. On appeal, Kight argues that his attorney did 

not adequately represent him when the attorney advised Kight to 

plead guilty because he failed to disclose the possibility that 

Kight might get a consecutive sentence on the mail fraud count. 1 

However, before the district court, Kight's ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim was premised on counsel's alleged failure to 

request adequate time to review the presentence report and 

counsel's alleged failures in connection with a Fed. R. Crim. P. 

35(b} motion. Nowhere in the district court did Kight complain 

that his attorney failed to: assert his rights under the alleged 

plea agreement. Thus, we decline to review this claim. Chase v. 

Crisp, 523 F.2d at 596. 

Finally, with regard to Kight's claim that he has been denied 

access to relevant "Brady Material" there is no indication that he 

raised that issue before the district court or that he obtained a 

ruling from the district court prior to taking this appeal. We 

note that after Kight filed his notice of appeal, he filed a 

motion with the district court entitled "Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Motion to Compel Transcripts of Hearings." Our records indicate 

that the district court has not ruled on this motion, as indeed it 

1 We are not entirely convinced that Kight is actually ra~s~ng an 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim on this appeal. we will, 

however, liberally construe his appeal as raising this issue. §gg 

Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 125-26 (lOth Cir. 1990). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7034 Document: 01019728211 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 3 
could not during the pendency of this appeal. Thus, we decline to 

review this issue as well. 

Other issues that are arguably alluded to in Kight's brief on 

appeal relate to Rule 11 and the failure to give him a Miranda 

warning. These issues are so inadequately developed that we 

cannot consider them even if they had been raised below. However, 

once again, our review of the record below indicates that they 

were not raised there, and thus, we decline to consider those 

issues on appeal. 

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons we AFFIRM the order of 

the District Court denying Kight's motion for relief under 28 

u.s.c. § 2255. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-7034 Document: 01019728211 Date Filed: 02/22/1991 Page: 4