Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06367/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06367-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Charles Curtis Harris
Appellant
H.N. Scott
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

. liIL)Er, 

UHITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

. FOR TIIB TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uou~ ScatG Cl,un of A 

Tenth Cirruit ~ 

MAR 14 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER. 

CHARLES CURTIS HARRIS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

H.N. SCOTT; ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) 

State of Oklahoma, ) 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No. 90-6367 

(D. C. No. CIV-90-1420-R) 

(W.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. Harris appeals, pro se, the dismissal of his habeas 

corpus petition. 

* 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: 90-6367 Document: 010110031083 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 1 
I 

, In 1987, Mr. Harris was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of the 

state offense of "Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating 

Liquor Subsequent Offense" (Order Affirming Denial of PostConviction Relief, dated August 14, 1990), and was sentenced to 

five years imprisonment. (Id.) (CRF-87-1358.) This conviction 

was appealed and affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See Harris v. State, 773 P.2d 1273 (Okla. Crim. App. 

1989). Mr. Harris completed this sentence and it was discharged 

on January 25, 1989. 

Also in 1987, Mr. Harris pled guilty to three unspecified 

felonies in state court and received ten-year 

count to run concurrently. (CRF-87-1549.) 

sentences on each 

No appeal was filed 

and it is these sentences that Mr. Harris is currently serving. 

In April 1990, Mr. Harris filed his petition for postconviction relief challenging his DUI conviction. Mr. Harris 

claimed this illegal conviction delayed the start of his present 

sentence. Relief was denied and the decision was affirmed by the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. This issue was not raised in 

Mr. Harrie's direct appeal and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals, in affirming the denial of relief, held Mr. Harris had 

failed to explain why this issue was not asserted or sufficiently 

raised in prior proceedings. See Order in Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals No. PC-90-783 dated August 14, 1990 (citing 21 

O.S. S 1087); see also Jones v. State, 668 P.2d 1170 (Okla. Crim. 

App. 1983). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6367 Document: 010110031083 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 2 
On August 30, 1990, Mr. Harris filed his prose petition for 

habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma challenging his DUI conviction on the basis 

of "ineffective counsel; denial of substantial due process; plain 

and fundamental errors; abuse of discretion; improper predicate; 

violation of Art. II, Section 21, Oklahoma Const.; [and] 

insufficient evidence." (Petition for Writ of 

Pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2254 By A Person in State 

August 30, 1990 at 3.) 

Habeas Corpus 

Custody, dated 

The district court thereupon ordered Mr. Harris to file a 

response addressing whether this petition was successive to an 

earlier habeas petition filed by Mr. Harris. See Order dated 

September 5, 1990. Mr. Harris responded by filing a motion for 

default judgment, which was denied. See Ruling dated October 19, 

1990. The State of Oklahoma thereupon filed a motion to dismiss 

for failure to fulfill the "in custody" requirement. 

The district court, after finding that Mr. Harris's sentence 

for the three felonies was not enhanced by the DUI conviction, 

ruled that Mr. Harris was not "in custody" for purposes of habeas 

corpus jurisdiction. See Malena v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989); 

Gamble v. Parsons, 898 F.2d 117 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. 

Ct . 212 ( 19 9 0 ) . 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6367 Document: 010110031083 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 3 
,. Mr. Harris appeals this holding pro se arguing that this 

illegal DUI conviction delayed the commencement of his service of 

his three felony sentences, which in turn delayed his release 

date. Mr. Harris relies upon Gamble. 

We grant Mr. Harris's motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and for issuance of certificate of probable cause. 

We first note our disagreement with Mr. Harris's reading of 

Gamble. In Gamble we held a prose litigant satisfied the "in 

custody" requirement for habeas jurisdiction where petitioner 

"made clear that his current sentence had been enhanced by the 

expired conviction he sought to challenge." Gamble, 898 F.2d at 

118. Clearly Mr. Harris's second sentence was not enhanced as a 

result of his first conviction. A delay in the commencement of 

service of the second unchallenged conviction and sentence is not 

sufficient to bring Mr. Harris into the purview of either Malena 

or Gamble. 

We therefore hold that delay in commencing service of a 

sentence is not tantamount to fulfilling the "in 

requirement for habeas jurisdiction. 

custody" 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6367 Document: 010110031083 Date Filed: 03/14/1991 Page: 4