Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06025/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Charles Edward Dean
Appellant
Stephen Kaiser
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cirruit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES EDWARD DEAN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STEPHEN KAISER and ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

AUG 2 4 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6025 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1975-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on appellant's motion for 

leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees and 

application for a certificate of probable cause. 

Appellant Charles Edward Dean filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus challenging his Oklahoma state court conviction on 

several counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, 

assault, and larceny of merchandise. His primary issue is 

inadequacy of counsel for failure to raise the defense of 

insanity. After examining the record, we are satisfied that the 

district court correctly found that appellant completely failed to 

* 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: 90-6025 Document: 010110041567 Date Filed: 08/24/1990 Page: 1 
satisfy the tests of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 

(1984), and Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977), for the 

reasons set out in its order of December 29, 1989, and can make no 

rational argument on the law or facts in support of the issues 

raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 

1962). 

We have reviewed the files and records and conclude that 

appellant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial 

of a federal right necessary for the issuance of a certificate of 

probable cause under 28 u.s.c. § 2253. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 

463 U.S. 880 (1983). 

It is ordered as follows: 

1. The filing fee is waived; 

2. Appellant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs or fees is denied; 

3. Appellant's application for a certificate of probable 

cause is denied; 

4. The appeal is dismissed; and 

5. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6025 Document: 010110041567 Date Filed: 08/24/1990 Page: 2