Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01696/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01696-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Angelone
Appellee
Clifton Mosier
Appellant

Document Text:

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

T<=>nth r.ircuit 

CLIFTON MOSIER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

RON ANGELONE, Warden, Joseph Harper 

Correctional Center, Lexington, OK, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

MAR O 21989 

> ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) No. 86-1696 

) (D.C. No. 84-C-458) 

) (N.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential -value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

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

Appellate Case: 86-1696 Document: 010110023887 Date Filed: 03/02/1989 Page: 1 
' ' Clifton Mosier (appellant), a state prisoner, appeals from 

the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. S 2254. In his petition, appellant raised the 

following grounds in support of relief: 

(1) Error of the court in admitting a statement taken 

from the defendant which was obtained as a ~irect result 

of his illegal and unconstitutional arrest. 

(2) Error of the court in finding Clifton Mosier _guilty 

of the counts alleging shooting with intent to kill when 

the state failed to present any evidence of the required 

specific intent. 

(3) Error of the court in allowing the state to 

introduce evidence of a statement alleged to have been 

made by Clifton Mosier after the state had failed to 

reserve this evidence by appropriate Rule VI procedures. 

(4) Error of the court in failing to suppress the 

alleged statements of Clifton Mosier on the ground that 

after his arrest he was not taken, in a timely manner, 

before a magistrate. 

(5) Error of the court in admitting the alleged 

statements of Clifton Mosier on the ground that this 

statement was obtained through the unethical conduct of 

the assistant district attorney then involved in the 

case. 

(6) Error of the court in admitting items of evidence 

seized under the authority of a search warrant issued on 

an insufficient affidavit (affidavit failed to provide 

sufficient facts). 

The first and sixth grounds for relief are based on fourth 

amendment considerations. These arguments must be rejected on the 

ground that they were litigated in state court, and federal courts 

1 In connection with his first ground for relief, appellant has 

also argued in his appellate brief that his attorney was denied 

access to him while he was making an inculpatory post-arrest 

statement. However, there is no indication that this argument was 

ever clearly presented to the district court. Consequently, it 

need npt be addressed on appeal. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 

106, 120 (1976). 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-1696 Document: 010110023887 Date Filed: 03/02/1989 Page: 2 
l 

cannot grant federal habeas relief based on a fourth amendment 

violation where the state has provided a full and fair litigation 

of that claim. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976). 

The second ground for relief challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence to establish the element of intent for one of the 

charged offenses. Viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the state, as required when reviewing the sufficiency 

of the evidence, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), we 

conclude that, on the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact 

could find that appellant acted with the requisite state of mind. 

Appellant's third and fourth grounds for relief, in essence, 

challenge the procedural conduct of the state court proceedings. 

Federal habeas corpus, however, is available only to correct 

wrongs of constitutional dimensions and not state procedural 

error. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982). 

Finally, the fifth ground for relief merely challenges the 

prosecutor's presence and participation in the interrogation of 

appellant. The presence of the prosecutor at the interrogation, 

however, does not render appellant's statement during the 

interrogation inadmissible, and the only issue is whether the 

admissions were the result of coercion by the prosecutor. Stroble 

v. California, 343 U.S. 181 (1952). There is no indication of 

coercion in the record. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 86-1696 Document: 010110023887 Date Filed: 03/02/1989 Page: 3