Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07060/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James L. Saffle
Appellee
Jimmy Lee Smith
Appellant
State of Oklahoma
Appellee

Document Text:

FILE 0 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Ucited Stares C..01,m: t,j{ Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 6 rns, 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JIMMY LEE SMITH, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

JAMES L. SAFFLE; STATE OF OKLAHOMA,) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 90-7060 

(D. C. No. 89-593-C) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

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. Smith appeals, prose, the denial of his petition for 

habeas relief. 

* 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: 90-7060 Document: 010110098451 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Smith was convicted by a state court jury of two 

felonies, robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous 

weapon, and was sentenced to serve fifty years. Mr. Smith 

appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals which affirmed 

in an unpublished decision dated June 8, 1983. Mr. Smith filed 

three separate petitions for post-conviction relief in the state 

court and relief was denied in all three cases. The state court, 

upon Mr. Smith filing his fourth petition, issued an order 

forbidding the filing of any further post-conviction applications. 

Mr. Smith then filed, prose, his petition for habeas corpus 

under 28 u.s.c. § 2254. Mr. Smith asserted three claims, which we 

quote: (1) "Petitioner alleged that he were denied of his right 

to exhaustion of state remedies before resort into Federal Habeas 

Corpus whereas to raise these allegation"; (2) "Petitioner assert 

that he had not as the required exhausted his state remedies under 

grounds of newly discovered evidence"; and (3) "Petitioner allege 

where the factual basis for claim was not present to the State 

Court., [sic] the claims is unexhausted as to allege allegation 

which fall under authorities of ROSE v. LUNDY " 

The district court referred the matter to a magistrate who 

examined the records and concluded that Mr. Smith had exhausted 

his state court remedies and was not denied that right, and 

recommended that Mr. Smith be denied relief. No exceptions or 

objections were filed to the magistrate's report, and the district 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7060 Document: 010110098451 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 2 
court, after reviewing the record, adopted and affirmed the 

magistrate's Findings and Recommendations. 

Mr. Smith appeals, prose, and requests that he be allowed to 

proceed in forma pauperis, which request we grant. 

On appeal, Mr. Smith raises the identical issues presented to 

the district court. Mr. Smith argues that "federal courts should 

not consider a claim 

opportunity to act .... " 

until after the state courts had an 

Mr. Smith misperceives the applicable law. We have carefully 

reviewed the record on appeal and have considered the brief and 

attachments presented by Mr. Smith. Appellant's request that we 

issue a certificate of probable cause is granted. We AFFIRM the 

judgment of the district court for substantially the same reason 

set forth in the "Findings and Recommendations" of James H. Payne, 

United States Magistrate, dated June 22, 1990, a copy of which is 

attached hereto. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7060 Document: 010110098451 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 3 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

FILED 

JUN .. 2 2 1990 

/ 

JIMMY LEE SMITH, ' ) 

Petitioner, ' ) 

WILUAM ■. QUTHIIIE 

c .... .,~~~'.!ct c-. 

11wt --.-r I Jr'/ 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JAMES L. SAFFLE, et al, ) 

Respondents. ) 

Case No. 89-593-C 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

o.itrOlenl 

This is a proceeding for writ of habeas corpus by the above named 

Petitioner who is a state prisoner incarcerated at the James Crabtree 

Correctional Center, in Helena, Oklahoma. Petitioner claims his conviction 

and sentence pursuant to the direction of the District Court of Okmulgee 

County, Oklahoma, in Case No. CRF-81-225, was unconstitutional. Petitioner 

was tried by jury and convicted of Robbery with Firearm and Assault with 

a Dangerous Weapon. The sentence was assessed to be fifty (50) years on 

the Robbery conviction and five (5) years on the Assault conviction, to run 

concurrently. As grounds for relief, Petitioner alleges the following: 

1. "PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT HE WERE (sic) DENIED OF HIS RIGHT TO 

EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES BEFORE RESORTING INTO (sic) FEDERAL 

HABEAS CORPUS WHEREAS TO RAISE THESE (sic) ALLEGATION." 

2. "PETITIONER ASSERT (sic) THAT HE HAD NOT AS THE (sic) REQUIRED 

EXHAUSTED HIS STATE REMEDIES UNDER GROUNDS OF NEWLY (sic) 

DISCOVERY EVIDENCE." 

3. "PETITIONER ALLEGE (sic) WHERE THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIM WAS NOT 

PRESENTED TO THE STATE COURT., THE CLAIMS IS (sic) UNEXHAUSTED AS 

TO ALL ALLEGATION (sic) WHICH FALL UNDER ATHORITIES (sic) OF ROSE 

V. LUNDY , SUPRA . , 11 

Petitioner appealed his conviction in Case No. CRF-81-225 to the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and that conviction was affirmed in an 

unpublished opinion on June 8, 1983. Petitioner raised three assignments 

of error, two of which complained of instructions that were not given to 

the jury and the other which argued that his punishment was excessive. 

Appellate Case: 90-7060 Document: 010110098451 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 4 
On November 28, 1984, 

conviction relief in the 

Petitioner filed an application for postDistrict Court of Okmulgee County. The 

application was denied on January 15, 1985. Petitioner did not get a copy 

of that order so the order was vacated on April 15, 1985 and another order 

denying post-conviction relief was filed, allowing Petitioner to perfect 

an appeal. An appeal of that denial was taken to the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals and affirmed on July 17, 1985. 

On May 15, 1985, Petitioner filed a second post-conviction relief 

application in the District Court of Okmulgee County. That application was 

denied on May 23, 1985. 

On October 26, 1987, Petitioner filed, in the District Court of 

Okmulgee County, a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Brief in Support. 

That request was denied by an order issued November 24, 1987. on May 18, 

1988, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued an Order Denying 

Mandamus. 

A third post-conviction application was filed on February 16, 1988. 

That application was denied on January 5, 1989. 

On March 9, 1989, the District Court of Okmulgee County issued an order 

forbidding the filing of any further post-conviction applications. 

on March 21, 1989, Petitioner filed a petition with the Oklahoma Court 

of Criminal Appeals to require the District Court of Okmulgee County to 

correct its action on his third post-conviction application. The Oklahoma 

Court of Criminal Appeals found, "[h] e has been denied post-conviction 

relief on three occasions and this is an effort to revive his last denial 

by contending that he was not provided with the court's order." The 

appellate court denied the writ. 

The Respondents have filed a response by and through the Attorney 

General for the State of Oklahoma. Included with the Attorney General's 

Appellate Case: 90-7060 Document: 010110098451 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 5 
J 

, response is a copy of the record in CRF-81-225 from the District Court of 

Okmulgee County. 

PROPOSITION I 

PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT HE WERE (sic) DENIED OF HIS RIGHT TO 

EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES BEFORE RESORTING INTO (sic) FEDERAL 

HABEAS CORPUS WHEREAS TO RAISE THESE (sic) ALLEGATION." 

In the present habeas petition, Petitioner contends that he has been 

denied his right to exhaust his state remedies. He appears to be 

contending that error occurred when the District ,Court of Okmulgee County 

did not timely docket his Notice of Intent to Appeal and Designation of 

Record. 

It is clear from the record that Petitioner's first post-conviction 

application was denied. The order was later vacated and a second order 

entered for the express purpose of a allowing Petitioner to appeal to the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The record also reflects that 

Petitioner had a direct appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, has 

applied for numerous original writs, and appealed from denial of postconviction relief to that court. Therefore, the Magistrate finds 

Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies and was not denied that 

right. 

Accordingly, the Magistrate finds the Petition for Habeas Corpus should 

be denied. 

Pursuant to Title 28 u.s.c. §636(b) (1) and Local Rule 32(d), parties 

are given ten (10} days from the above filing date to file with the Clerk 

of the Court any objections, with supporting brief. 

DATED this c;1d) day of June, 1990. 

JAMES H. PA 

U.S .. Magistrate 

\j 

Appellate Case: 90-7060 Document: 010110098451 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 6