Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06003/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clovis Lionel Prince
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

., 

l1ILBD 

United States Court of A ppea1s 

'Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEP 7 .. 1989 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CLOVIS LIONEL PRINCE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6003 

(D.C. No. CR-85-271-E) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before MCKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Clovis Lionel Prince was convicted of 25 counts of 

mail fraud. He directly appealed to this court, arguing 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. When he lost that 

appeal, he filed a motion for rehearing with a suggestion for 

rehearing en bane in which he argued ineffective assistance of 

appellate counsel, which prevented an effective appeal. The 

motion for rehearing was denied. Appellant subsequently filed a 

habeas petition and a Rule 35 motion, both of which were denied by 

* 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: 89-6003 Document: 01019973447 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 1 
' . 

the district court, and both of which are the subject of this 

appeal. 

Appellant raises several issues on appeal: (1) whether the 

prosecution knowingly permitted perjured testimony and/or allowed 

perjured testimony to occur at appellant's trial; (2) whether the 

district court erred by not reviewing the appellate record during 

the habeas corpus petition; (3) whether the issues argued in 

appellant's habeas petition were sufficient to warrant appellant's 

release or a new trial; (4) whether the district court 

misunderstood or misapplied the this court's prior decision in 

appellant's direct appeal; (5) whether the district court erred by 

failing to grant appellant a hearing; (6) whether the district 

court erred by failing to release appellant in light of alleged 

perjured testimony in his trial; (7) whether there was a violation 

of the Court Reporters Act; (8) whether the district court erred 

by not reviewing the sentencing transcript pursuant to the Rule 35 

motion; and (9) whether the issues argued in appellants Rule 35 

motion warrant resentencing. 

Appellant's first six issues relate to the denial of his 

habeas petition. In that petition, appellant raised several 

allegations: (1) he was denied effective assistance of appellate 

counsel; (2) the sentence imposed was cruel and unusual under the 

Eighth Amendment; (3) he was denied compulsory process to obtain 

witnesses favorable to him at trial; (4) his conviction was 

obtained by the use of perjured testimony; (5) he was compulsory 

due process during sentencing; and (6) he was convicted in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 89-6003 Document: 01019973447 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 2 
' .. 

Appellant raised none of those issues on direct appeal and 

cannot raise them in a habeas petition absent a showing of cause 

and prejudice. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 

(1982). Appellant argues that the "cause" of his failure to raise 

those issues on direct appeal is that he had ineffective 

assistance of counsel for his appeal due to appellate counsel's 

incarceration during the pendency of the appeal. 

The district court reviewed appellant's claim of ineffective 

assistance of appellate under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668 (1984), and concluded that he did not receive inadequate 

assistance of counsel. We have carefully reviewed the trial 

transcript and the brief prepared by the appellate counsel on 

direct appeal, and we agree with the district court's conclusions 

that appellant has failed to demonstrate that his appellate 

counsel performance was deficient or that appellant suffered 

prejudice by any alleged errors. Because appellant has failed to 

demonstrate a "cause" for his failure to raise his habeas issues 

on direct appeal, we need not look at the merits of those issues 

to determine any prejudice. 

We also reject appellant's assertion that there was a 

violation of the Court Reporters Act. Appellant failed to raise 

that issue in the district court, so we need not address it on 

appeal. See Gundy v. United States, 728 F.2d 484, 488 (10th Cir. 

1984) ("We will not review matters raised for the first time on 

appeal.") 

Appellant's last two issues raise errors with respect to the 

district court's dismissal of appellant's Rule 35 motion. 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 89-6003 Document: 01019973447 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 3 
. -~ 

However, appellant has failed to include a copy of his Rule 35 

motion in the record on appeal. Therefore, we are unable to 

substantiate his argument that the motion was erroneously 

dismissed. 

For the above stated reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's 

denial of his habeas petition and his Rule 35 motion. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 89-6003 Document: 01019973447 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 4