Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06224/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06224-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Daniel T. Cavazos
Appellant
Dan Reynolds
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1:/ l J..l ~ l; 

united StatG::: Cc.!r: · - l: ;.:.:.:.., 

TENTH CIRCUIT '1' :2ti. ci:-:<~ 

DANIEL T. CAVAZOS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DAN REYNOLDS; ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

J,. 1 .. " ~1 

ROBERT L. HO~~~~? 

Clerk 

No. 90-6224 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-608-W) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This court grants petitioner Daniel T. Cavazos the right to 

appeal in forma pauperis and grants a certificate of probable 

cause, in order to dispose of the case on its merits. 

* 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: 90-6224 Document: 010110076371 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 1 
~ . 

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his first degree murder conviction by a 

state court in Oklahoma. He sought relief based on three grounds: 

(1) the state trial court erred in not sustaining his demurrer to 

the evidence at the closing of the state's case; (2) the state 

trial court erred in admitting evidence of his fingerprint which 

was collected by what he argues was unreliable scientific means; 

and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction 

because there was no proof of malice or ~orethought. 

These contentions were treated very well in the district 

court's opinion and order entered May 31, 1990. We can add little 

to the analysis in that opinion and affirm for substantially the 

reasons stated therein. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6224 Document: 010110076371 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 2