Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06428/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06428-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Kaiser
Appellee
Clarence Everett Rose
Appellant

Document Text:

- .... 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CLARENCE EVERETT ROSE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. No. 89-6428 

. FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

M Y 2 9 1990 

AOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

STEPHEN KAISER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

(D. C. No. CIV-89-1366-A) 

( W. D. Ok la. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, 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(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This is a prose appeal from the denial of a petition for 

habeas corpus. 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6428 Document: 010110036106 Date Filed: 05/29/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Rose pled guilty in 1975 to assault and battery with a 

dangerous weapon with intent to kill and second degree murder in 

the state court of Oklahoma. He was sentenced to a ten-year term 

on the first charge and an indeterminate ten years to life on the 

second charge to run concurrently. Mr. Rose did not appeal but 

has unsuccessfully pursued post-conviction relief through the 

Oklahoma courts. 

Mr. Rose alleged three constitutional errors: (1) that he 

was denied the presence of counsel during critical stages of the 

proceedings; (2) that the record does not reflect sufficient 

advice of rights to insure that his pleas were voluntary; and (3) 

that his pleas of guilty were the product of fear and coercion. 

The district court reviewed the state court records and 

concluded that the state court records established that Mr. Rose 

was not entitled to relief. 

On appeal Mr. Rose asserts that due process requires that he 

be given an evidentiary hearing and that the state court records 

were both inadequate and inaccurate. He asks that we remand the 

case to the district court with instructions to conduct an 

evidentiary hearing. 

An evidentiary hearing on a petition for habeas corpus is not 

required where the issues can be resolved on the basis of the 

record and when a hearing would have no impact on the result. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6428 Document: 010110036106 Date Filed: 05/29/1990 Page: 2 
' 

Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963); Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 

F.2d 1203 (10th Cir. 1986). It is the petitioner's burden to 

demonstrate facts sufficient to warrant a hearing. 

The district court made explicit factual findings on Mr. 

Rose's claims of involuntary guilty pleas and nonrepresentation of 

counsel specifically noting that the record was sufficient to 

resolve the allegations. 

A recording of the state court proceedings was made; however 

it was not transcribed nor can it be. The state court record does 

include a summary of facts, which was a series of questions 

answered by Mr. Rose, signed by him, his defense counsel, the 

prosecuting attorney, the state trial judge, court reporter, and 

deputy court clerk. This state court document was prepared and 

executed at the time of the plea. Mr. Rose makes no allegations 

that he was forced into executing this document. This document 

clearly contradicts Mr. Rose's present allegations. 

Such a summary of facts is recognized as a sufficient record 

of a guilty plea proceeding. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 

(1969); Moore v. Anderson, 474 F.2d 1118 (10th Cir. 1973). 

Mr. Rose 

thereby making 

determined that 

contends he 

his pleas 

was ill when he entered his pleas, 

involuntary. The district court 

Mr. Rose's desire to receive medical treatment, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6428 Document: 010110036106 Date Filed: 05/29/1990 Page: 3 
other than that then offered, was not coercion. These contentions 

by Mr. Rose find no support in the record and are without merit. 

Mr. Rose's claims are without merit. The decisions of the 

district court are AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6428 Document: 010110036106 Date Filed: 05/29/1990 Page: 4