Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01266/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01266-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DENVER DISTRICT COURT
Appellee
Roland Heath
Appellant
Gale A. Norton
Appellee
John L. Simonet
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL .tJ 

United States C-ourt of Appea~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cirt!uit 

ROLAND HEATH, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHN L. SIMONET; DENVER DISTRICT 

COURT; GALE A. NORTON, Attorney 

General of the State of Colorado, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 7 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-1266 

(D.C. No. 92-S-356) 

(Dist. of Colorado) 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRET!', 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. 

Roland Heath, appearing prose, appeals from an order of the 

district court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

* 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: 92-1266 Document: 010110151431 Date Filed: 12/07/1992 Page: 1 
Heath is a state prisoner currently serving a life 

imprisonment sentence at the Limon Correctional Facility of the 

Colorado Department of Corrections. 

In January, 1988, Heath was convicted of aggravated robbery 

in a state court proceeding, case number 86-CR-1716. On appeal, 

Heath argued that his conviction was void because his right to a 

speedy trial had been violated. The Colorado Court of Appeals 

rejected Heath's speedy trial argument but reversed on other 

grounds and remanded for a new trial. 

In February, 1992, Heath, while awaiting a new trial in case 

number 86-CR-1716, filed the habeas corpus petition from which he 

here appeals, challenging his conviction in case number 86-CR1716. Within his petition Heath alleged, as he had in state 

court, that his conviction was void because his right to a speedy 

trial had been violated. After filing his petition, Heath was 

convicted in case number 86-CR-1673 and sentenced to life 

imprisonment. On March 24, 1992, the State voluntarily dismissed 

the charges in 86-CR-1716. 

Subsequent thereto, the district court dismissed Heath's 

habeas petition, finding that inasmuch as 11 [t]here is therefore no 

underlying conviction in this case which Petitioner can attack .. 

. , the petition is consequently mooted." The court also observed 

that there was no indication that Heath's claims had been 

exhausted in the state courts. 

On appeal, Heath contends that the district court erred in 

ruling that his claims were moot and in dismissing his petition 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1266 Document: 010110151431 Date Filed: 12/07/1992 Page: 2 
without considering his allegations that he was denied his right 

to a speedy trial and deprived of his due process rights to be 

free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

We grant Heath's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal and affirm the district court's denial of a certificate of 

probable cause. 

The federal habeas corpus statutes grant district courts 

jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas corpus relief only 

for persons who are in custody in violation of the constitution or 

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (3); 

Maleng v. Cook, U.S. , 109 S. Ct. 1923, 1925 (1989). A 

habeas petitioner must be "in custody" under the conviction or 

sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed. Id. 

Once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, 

the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves 

sufficient to render an individual in custody for purposes of a 

habeas challenge to the conviction. Maleng, __ U.S. , 109 S. 

Ct. at 1926. 

Applying these standards to our case, we hold that the 

district court properly dismissed Heath's habeas corpus petition. 

Heath was clearly not in custody under the sentence or conviction 

under attack, case number 86-CR-1716, since it had been voluntarily dismissed by the State. Moreover, "even if the fullyexpired conviction has, in fact, been used to enhance a subsequent 

sentence, it may not be attacked directly in a habeas action. 

Rather, the attack must be directed toward the enhanced sentence 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-1266 Document: 010110151431 Date Filed: 12/07/1992 Page: 3 
under which the defendant is in custody." Gamble v. Parsons, 898 

F . 2d 117, 118 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

U.S. (1990). 

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1266 Document: 010110151431 Date Filed: 12/07/1992 Page: 4