Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04096/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Allen Tyree
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

DEC 2 g 1~89 

ROBERTL. f-.JOECKER ~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RICHARD ALLEN TYREE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-4096 

Appeal from the United States.District Court 

for the District of Utah 

(D.C. No. 88-C-0418S) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Richard Allen Tyree, prose. 

CT,,.~•1, .l.C~ • .._ 

Dee Benson, United States Attorney, and Wayne T. Dance, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah, for PlaintiffAppellee. 

Before SEYMOUR, TACHA, and EBEL, Circ~it Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Cir~uit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-4096 Document: 010110192738 Date Filed: 12/22/1989 Page: 1 
Pro se plaintiff ·Richard Allen Tyree, an inmate of the 

Federal Correctional Institution at La Tuna, Texas, appeals from 

the denial of his motion to set aside the district court's refusal 

to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1982). The 

district court held that Assistant United States Attorney Wayne 

Dance's representation of the United States in Tyree's criminal 

case in the District of Utah did not violate Tyree's 

constitutional rights even though Dance was not at the time a 

member of the Utah bar. We affirm. 1 

I. 

Tyree was convicted and sentenced in federal court in Utah 

for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under 18 

u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l) (1982). During the investigation, trial, and 

sentencing, the prosecutor responsible for Tyree's case, Wayne 

Dance, was not a member of the Utah State Bar. 2 Long before 

Dance's involvement with Tyree's case began, however,· Dance had 

been properly appointed to his post by the Attorney General of the 

United States pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 542(a) (1982). On October 

5, 1983, also well prior to the commencement of any proceedings 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has. deter.mi.ned:.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 cause is th~refore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 Dance was an inactive member of the California State Bar at 

the time. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-4096 Document: 010110192738 Date Filed: 12/22/1989 Page: 2 
against Tyree, the active judges of the District of Utah entered 

the following order: 

"It is hereby ordered that Assistan·t United States 

Attorney Wayne Thomas Dance is admitted to the bar of 

the United States District Court for the District of 

Utah pending his admission to the bar of the Supreme 

Court of the State of Utah." · 

This order remained in effect throughout Dance's representation of 

the United States in procuring an indictment against Tyree, and 

throughout the trial and sentencing proceedings. Dance finally 

joined the Utah Bar Association in October 1987. 

II. 

Tyree argues that Dance's representation of the United States 

violated his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial. Throughout 

the proceedings, Dance was an active member of the bar of the 

United States District Court for the District of Utah. Even if 

some irregularity existed in Dance's admission to the federal bar, 

Tyree bas not shown how Dance's work as prosecutor in his case 

amounted to prejudice affecting the fundamental fairness of his 

trial. See,~' Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 108 S. 

Ct. 2369, 2373 (1988) (showing of prejudice necessary to dismiss 

.Lndi.ctrnen.t .. for,.,.prose.cu·tor.iaL mis.conduct); United States --V-. 

Kornegay, 885 .F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir. 1989) ("The question for 

resolution is not the culpability of the prosecutor but, rather, 

the fairness of the trial."). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-4096 Document: 010110192738 Date Filed: 12/22/1989 Page: 3 
Tyree also contends that Dance's representation of the United 

States somehow violated Tyree's Sixth Amen·dment right to counsel. 

The nature of piosecutorial representation ~oes not implicate the 

Sixth Amendment, which concerns only a criminal defendant's right 

to self-representation or to representation by counsel. See 

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 818-19 (1975)~ United States 

v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1501-03 (10th Cir. 1988). Tyree argues 

that because Dance was not a lawyer, Tyree had a Sixth Amendment 

right to be represented by a lay person. However, a criminal 

defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to lay counsel. See United 

States v. Tedder, 787_ F. 2d 540, 543 ( 10th Cir. 1986) ( "The term 

··•counsel' refers to 'a person authorized. to practice law •. '"). 3 

We AFFIRM the district court. The mandate shall -issue 

forthwith. 

J Tyree claims on appeal that he was denied his constitutional 

right to equal protection of the law because the Government was 

permitted to be represented by a lay person but he was not. This 

claim was not raised below and is, in any event, frivolous. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-4096 Document: 010110192738 Date Filed: 12/22/1989 Page: 4