Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05055/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Cowley
Appellee
Roy Lee Dunn
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED ~IL ri~ D STATES COURT OF APPEALS .L' .J..:.J 

United S~ Court of Ap~ Tenl'l Cir~ui~ FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROY LEE DUNN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

JACK COWLEY, warden, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

MAR2 4 1992 

) ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk . ) 

) 

) No . 91-5055 

) (D.C. No. 90-C-226-C) 

) ( N. D. Okla . ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the Defendant's brief and appellate record, 

this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant was convicted by the Oklahoma state district court 

for Payne County of two counts of murder in the first degree, and 

he was sentenced by that court to two life sentences for those 

convictions. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the 

convictions. Defendant thereafter filed an application for a writ 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court withi n the Tenth Circui t, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Ci r. R. 

36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 91-5055 Document: 010110239043 Date Filed: 03/24/1992 Page: 1 
of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That 

court denied Defendant's application for habeas relief. Defendant 

now appeals the district court's denial of post-conviction relief. 

Defendant has also moved this court for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and has requested issuance of a certificate of probable 

cause. Defendant's Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without 

Prepayment of Costs of Fees is hereby GRANTED. In addition, it is 

hereby ORDERED that a Certificate of Probable Cause be issued. We 

will now consider the merits of Defendant's appeal. 

Defendant claims that the evidence presented during the state 

court trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. "In a 

habeas corpus proceeding, we review a challenge to the sufficiency 

of the evidence to determine 'whether, after viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Cordoba v. Hanrahan, 910 F.2d 691, 

694 (10th Cir.) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 

(1979)), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 585 (1990). We have reviewed 

the lengthy trial record, and we find that there was sufficient 

evidence to convict Defendant. 

Defendant's prose habeas petition seems to raise the issue 

of whether denial of his motion for severance of his trial from 

that of his codefendants violated his right to a fair trial. 

Federal R. Crim. P. 14 provides that a court may grant a severance 

of defendants if a defendant is prejudiced by the joinder of 

defendants. "The decision to grant separate trials under Rule 14 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-5055 Document: 010110239043 Date Filed: 03/24/1992 Page: 2 
is 'within the sound discretion of the trial court and its 

decision will not ordinarily be reversed in the absence of a 

strong showing of prejudice.' Defendant's burden to show an abuse 

of discretion is a difficult one." United States v. Cox, 934 F.2d 

1114, 1119 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Valentine, 

706 F.2d 282, 289-90 (10th Cir. 1983)). Defendant has not made a 

strong showing of prejudice resulting from the joinder of 

defendants at trial and, therefore, he has not met his burden. 

We also read Defendant's pro se brief as arguing that, 

because the information charged that he acted "together and 

conjointly" with his codefendants, he should be retried because 

the charges against his codefendants have been dropped. The 

manner in which Defendant was charged and the elements necessary 

for conviction are matters of state law which we will not address 

in this habeas petition. See Davis v. Reynolds, 890 F.2d 1105, 

1109 n.3 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Defendant raised seven issues, in addition to his claim of 

insufficiency of the evidence, before the district court. It is 

not entirely clear from Defendant's prose brief which, if any, of 

those seven issues are raised on appeal. 1 We have, however, 

reviewed the issues raised in the district court, and we agree 

with its finding that none of the issues presents constitutional 

error which would permit habeas relief. 2 

1 Defendant 

sufficiency on 

district court. 

has clearly raised 

appeal. That issue 

the issue of evidence 

was also raised before the 

2 In addition to holding the evidence in this case to be 

sufficient, we affirm the district court's findings on the seven 

remaining issues raised before that court. The trial court did 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-5055 Document: 010110239043 Date Filed: 03/24/1992 Page: 3 
We have reviewed all issues raised by Defendant in his prose 

brief, as well as the issues presented to the district court, and 

we find that none of Defendant's claims rise to the level of 

constitutional error necessary for habeas relief. The judgment of 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Oklahoma is, therefore, AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay, 

Chief Judge 

not deny Defendant a fair trial by admitting evidence of other 

crimes or by restricting cross-examination. No actual conflict of 

interest was shown which resulted in ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated 

because he was only allowed three peremptory jury challenges or 

because an alternate juror was present in the jury room at the 

beginning of deliberations . Finally, neither the trial court's 

instruction to the jury to continue deliberations nor certain 

prosecutorial remarks in closing argument violated Defendant's 

right to due process. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-5055 Document: 010110239043 Date Filed: 03/24/1992 Page: 4