Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07067/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Henry
Appellee
Dan Reynolds
Appellee
James Wallace Wolfe
Appellant

Document Text:

..... • ✓ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JiJN 2 0 1990 

ltOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JAMES WALLACE WOLFE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DAN REYNOLDS, Warden, and 

ROBERT HENRY, Attorney General 

of the State of Oklahoma, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 89-7067 

(D.C. No. 88-701-C) 

(E. Dist. of Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The prose petitioner, James Wolfe, was convicted in state 

court of first degree murder. At his trial, evidence of a statement which Wolfe had made to police officers after his arrest was 

introduced. Wolfe appealed his conviction in state court, arguing 

that admission of the statement was improper because the statement 

* 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: 89-7067 Document: 010110036868 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 1 
was allegedly made during plea negotiations with the prosecutor. 

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma rejected Wolfe's argument because Wolfe's defense counsel had failed to object to the 

admission of the evidence in a manner that would preserve the 

issue for appeal. Wolfe thereafter filed a petition for habeas 

corpus in the federal district court, contending that his 

counsel's failure in this regard constituted a denial of effective 

assistance of counsel. The district court denied his petition and 

this appeal followed. 1 

On appeal, Wolfe contends that he was prejudiced by his 

counsel's failure because the statement which was admitted was 

extremely inculpatory and it was the result of: (1) threats, 

intimidation, and coercion by the interrogating police officers; 

and (2) Wolfe's belief that the statement was being made pursuant 

to a plea bargain negotiation. The district court found that, as 

a matter of fact, no threats or coercion was directed toward 

Wolfe, but that the statement had been made voluntarily. 

Likewise, the court concluded that under the circumstances at the 

time of the statement Wolfe's subjective belief that a plea agreement was being negotiated, if indeed he held such a belief, was 

not reasonable given the absence of any objective indicia that 

such was the case. The court therefore held, citing Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), that Wolfe had failed to show "a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional er1 The government does not argue that Wolfe has failed to exhaust 

his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the state 

courts. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7067 Document: 010110036868 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 2 
rors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." 

Id. at 694. 

After reviewing the record, we can find no clear error in the 

district court's factual determination. See Castleberry v. 

Alford, 666 F.2d 1338, 1342 (10th Cir. 1982) (district court's 

findings of fact are not set aside unless clearly erroneous). 

Wolfe has presented no evidence of any threats or coercion, and 

offers no support for his belief that a plea agreement was being 

negotiated. Wolfe has therefore failed to demonstrate why the 

statement was even arguably inadmissible. Defense counsel's 

failure to properly object to the statement's admission was 

therefore inconsequential to the ultimate outcome of the proceeding. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 (no ineffective assistance of 

counsel where there is no breakdown in the adversarial process 

that renders the result unreliable). 

The order of the district court denying the petition for writ 

of habeas corpus is affirmed; the mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-7067 Document: 010110036868 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 3