Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08017/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08017-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Wyoming
Appellee
Patrick E. Eatherton
Appellant
Duane Shillinger
Appellee

Document Text:

PATRICK E. EATHERTON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DUANE SHILLINGER; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF WYOMING, 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG 18 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk . 

No. 92-8017 

(D.C. No. C91-0144B) 

( D. Wyoming) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Patrick Eatherton appeals the district court's refusal to 

grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that 

*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: 92-8017 Document: 010110276752 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 1
his Wyoming conviction for burglary was obtained in violation of 

the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the 

Constitution, as construed in Grady v. Corbin, 110 S. Ct. 2084 

(1990). After granting Mr. Eatherton's motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we disagree and affirm. 

Mr. Eatherton was convicted of burglary and simultaneously 

acquitted of larceny. His burglary conviction was reversed on 

appeal and remanded for a new trial. See Eatherton v. State, 761 

P.2d 91 (Wyo. 1988). In the prosecution for burglary that 

followed, the government introduced evidence of larcenous intent 

that it had employed in its prior prosecution for larceny. Mr. 

Eatherton maintains that the use of this evidence violated the 

double jeopardy clause. 

On appeal, Mr. Eatherton also argues that his due process 

rights were violated by the refusal of the trial court to allow 

him to present evidence of his prior acquittal of larceny. We 

will not consider this claim "as [it was] not presented to the 

district court in the petition for writ of habeas corpus or in the 

petitioner's district court brief." Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 

F.2d 1185, 1217 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3256 

(1990). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-8017 Document: 010110276752 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 2
After reviewing the briefs and record in this case, we affirm 

on the double jeopardy issue for substantially the reasons stated 

in the district court opinion. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-8017 Document: 010110276752 Date Filed: 08/18/1992 Page: 3