Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05184/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Ed Burnett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States C.OUrt of Appeals 

URITBD STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cirruit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

HAROLD ED BURNETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TEH'l'II CIRCUIT NOV 15 1990 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5184 

(D.C. No. 88-C-1575-E) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. j4(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Burnett, a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 

pro se petition for relief which he filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

* 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: 89-5184 Document: 010110051282 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 1 
1 § 2255. We grant Mr. Burnett permission to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

Mr. Burnett was convicted of first degree murder and was 

sentenced to life imprisonment. Mr. Burnett appealed his 

conviction to this court and we affirmed the conviction. See 

United States v. Burnett, 777 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. 

denied, 476 U.S. 1106 (1986). Thereafter Mr. Burnett filed his 

first motion for relief under 28 u.s.c. § 2255. The basic thrust 

of this petition was Mr. Burnett's claim that he was denied 

effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief 

and that action was affirmed by this court. See Burnett v. Kerr, 

835 F.2d 1319 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 830 (1988). Mr. 

Burnett has now filed his second petition for relief under 28 

u.s.c. § 2255 which was again denied by the district court. 

In this, Mr. Burnett's second petition for relief, he again 

claims ineffective assistance of counsel by asserting that his 

trial counsel advised him "he had no choice except to take the 

witness stand and testify." He further argues he was denied 

effective assistance of counsel in his first§ 2255 proceeding. 

The applicable standard of review for attorney performance 

relative to the effective assistance of counsel is set forth in 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). For an appellant 

to succeed on such a claim, he must show "deficiency plus 

prejudice." United States v. Miller, 907 F.2d 994, 997 (10th Cir. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5184 Document: 010110051282 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 2 
, 1990). 

We note that Mr. Burnett's first claim, regarding his 

counsel's advisement that Mr. Burnett would have to take the 

stand, was decided by this court in his second appeal. In that 

case we stated to Mr. Burnett that there was no evidence to 

support his claim. Id. at 1321. Mr. Burnett now argues that he 

has two affidavits supporting his claim. 

answered this contention as follows: 

The district court 

The grounds for relief in the instant motion are 

essentially the same as those raised in his first §2255 

motion. Defendant's claim that G. Steven Stidham 

provided ineffective assistance of counsel at trial was 

rejected by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Burnett 

v. Kerr, 835 F.2d 1319 (10th Cir. 1988). This ground 

for relief having already been decided on direct appeal, 

this Court finds that the interests of justice do not 

necessitate reconsideration of the issue and accordingly 

declines to do so. 

This decision of the district court is correct and must be 

affirmed. Notwithstanding the reasons advanced by the district 

court, the claimed deficient performance, even if true, has not 

been shown to have prejudiced Mr. Burnett's defense. Mr. Burnett 

has admitted shooting and killing the victim. At his trial, Mr. 

Burnett testified the killing was done in self defense. In view 

of the prosecution's testimony, it is difficult to conceive how 

the alleged deficient performance prejudiced 

defense. 

Mr. Burnett's 

Considering Mr. Burnett's claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel in his first petition for relief, the district court 

stated: 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5184 Document: 010110051282 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 3 
The governing principles for a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel are found in [Strickland] v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and include both a 

deficient performance by counsel, and a defense 

prejudiced by the deficient performance. Id. at 687. 

Assuming, on behalf of Defendant Burnett, that the 

alleged failures on the part of Attorney Art Fleak took . place, this Court cannot find that the deficient 

performance in any way prejudiced Burnett's defense. 

Thus, Defendant Burnett has failed to meet the necessary 

burden of proof to satisfy the [Strickland], supra, 

standard. 

Having considered Mr. Burnett's briefs and the record on 

appeal, we conclude the decisions of the trial court must be and 

hereby are AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-5184 Document: 010110051282 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 4