Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05159/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Champion
Appellee
Billy Buck Hogan
Appellant

Document Text:

I 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uaitcd States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 51991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

BILLY BUCK HOGAN, Clerk ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RON CHAMPION, Warden, and THE) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE) 

OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 90-5159 

(D.C. No. 89-C-397-B) 

( N. 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without_oral argument. _ 

Petitioner-appellant Billy Buck Hogan and his co-defendant, 

armed and masked, kicked open a door and entered a home in Tulsa 

County. They held a fourteen-year-old boy, Matt Hart, at gunpoint 

while they ransacked the home for several hours. When Matt's 

brother, Michael, returned home, Hogan and his co-defendant jumped 

Michael, threatened to shoot him, and kicked him in the face. 

They loaded items stolen from the house into the Hart's van and 

* 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: 90-5159 Document: 010110131440 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 1 
left the scene. Some time later, members of the sheriff's 

department began following the stolen van, and the vehicle ran 

three road blocks. When the van was eventually stopped, Hogan 

attempted to flee on foot but was apprehended. 

Hogan pleaded guilty in the District Court of Tulsa County to 

first degree burglary, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, 

assault with a dangerous weapon, two counts of robbery with 

firearms, and three counts of running a roadblock. He was 

sentenced to fifty-two years' imprisonment, with twenty-six years 

suspended. 

Hogan's attempt to withdraw his guilty plea was rejected by 

the District Court of Tulsa County. Hogan appealed to the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing in part his 

constitutional protection against double jeopardy had been 

violated. The court rejected this argument, noting Hogan had 

failed to raise his double jeopardy claim in any of the 

proceedings below. The court stated that "'[t)he long established 

rule in Oklahoma is that protection from double jeopardy is a 

personal right which may be waived by the defendant's failure to 

assert the defense or make a timely objection.'" Hogan Y...!.. State, 

761 P.2d 908, 910 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) (quoting Hall Y...!.. State, 

650 P.2d 893 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982)). The court concluded Hogan 

was procedurally barred from asserting his double jeopardy claim. 

Id. 

Hogan then filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal 

district court. The district court denied the petition, noting 

that "[w]here there is an adequate and independent state ground 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5159 Document: 010110131440 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 2 
for denying relief, such as a procedural default, a federal court 

should likewise deny relief unless the prisoner can show cause 

for, and prejudice from, the default." The court concluded Hogan 

did not show cause for his failure to raise his double jeopardy 

claim in a timely manner. 

Hogan has waived his federal constitutional claim. In United 

States Y.!.. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989), the Supreme Court held a 

defendant who pleads guilty waives his protection from double 

jeopardy. Id. at 571. The Court noted a collateral attack on a 

guilty plea is permissible, however, if a conviction under a 

second indictment must be set aside because the defendant's right 

not to be haled into court has been violated. Id. at 574-75 

(citing Blackledge Y.!.. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974); Menna Y.!.. New 

York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975)). 

In the present case, Hogan waived his double jeopardy 

protections when he pleaded guilty to the charged offenses. 

Instead of pleading guilty, Hogan could have challenged the theory 

of the indictment and attempted to show he was charged with 

multiple offenses for the same conduct. He chose not to do so and 

thus "relinquished that entitlement." Broce, 488 U.S. at 571. 

The exception to the waiver rule announced in Blackledge and Menna 

is not applicable in this case. The district court properly 

denied Hogan's petition for writ of habeas corpus. We AFFIRM. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5159 Document: 010110131440 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 3