Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08019/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Wyoming
Appellee
Barry B. Boyer
Appellant
Duane Shillinger
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BARRY B. BOYER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

I ,I.J l~ '· 

United G\t;!-.. tA-•;: ( 'rt:r,'1- rif -' 

,.r: ', ,- . . APPEALS . 

AUG 18 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-8019 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. 92-CV-0002-B) 

(D. Wyo.) 

DUANE SHILLINGER and ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument.** 

Barry Boyer appeals from the district court's denial of his 

petition for habeas corpus. He cites three basic areas of 

contention. First, he alleges several technical violations of 

*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. 

** We grant Mr. Boyer's motion for in forma pauperis status and 

for a certificte of probable cause. 

Appellate Case: 92-8019 Document: 010110276755 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 1
Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 (corresponding to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11) during the hearing on his guilty plea, all of which 

are uncontested. He also challenges the sentencing court's 

jurisdiction to impose restitution on him. Finally, he claims 

that he suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel. 

While strict compliance with Rule 15 is desirable, the only 

constitutional requirement is that a guilty plea be knowing and 

voluntary. In the absence of constitutional error or special 

prejudice to the defendant, errors during the plea hearing are not 

grounds for collateral attack. United States v. Timmreck, 441 

U.S. 780 (1979); see also Evers v. United States, 579 F.2d 71, 73 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924 (1978). The errors in 

this case were purely technical and do not require reversal. With 

respect to Mr. Boyer's second argument, Wyoming law permits a 

sentencing court to order restitution to the victims of crimes. 

Wyo. Stat. §§ 7-9-102, 103 (1991). Mr. Boyer makes only 

conclusory allegations with respect to his third claim, for 

ineffective assistance of counsel, and offers no showing that the 

result of his proceedings would have been different had he been 

more thoroughly advised. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for substantially 

the reasons given by the district court. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-8019 Document: 010110276755 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 2