Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06384/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06384-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Jody Gonzales
Appellant
Michael D. Parsons
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

Uoited States Courr of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

JODY GONZALES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL D. PARSONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

State of Oklahoma, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP 19 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 89-6384 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-1482-P) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

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 is an appeal by Jody Gonzales from the district court's 

order denying a petition for habeas corpus. Gonzales contends 

that the district court erred in finding no equal protection 

violation in the Oklahoma courts' reduction of his indeterminate 

ten years to life sentence, concededly an illegal sentence under 

* 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: 89-6384 Document: 010110042228 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 1 
Oklahoma law, see White Y..:.. State, 774 P.2d 1072 (Okla. Crim. App. 

1989), to an indeterminate ten to thirty years sentence instead of 

a flat ten years or time served sentence, as the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals had done in a number of similar earlier cases. 

We dismiss the appeal. 

We are bound by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' 

determination that Gonzales' sentence is correct under Oklahoma 

law. The Oklahoma trial court committed no state law error in 

using Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1085 to modify and correct an 

illegal sentence. 

Turning to the equal protection argument, we find that 

Gonzales has not stated a viable claim. Because Oklahoma law 

permits the trial court to modify an originally illegal sentence 

to some term other than the minimum or "time served," Gonzales has 

not shown a deprivation of equal protection of the laws. The 

Constitution does not require identical sentences for persons 

convicted of the same offense. See Williams Y..:.. Illinois, 399 U.S. 

235, 243 (1970); United States Y..:.. Anglian, 784 F.2d 765, 768 (6th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 841 (1986). There is no 

constitutional error in Gonzales' sentence. 

Because we find that Gonzales has not made a "substantial 

showing of the denial of a federal right," Barefoot Y..:.. Estelle, 

463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983), we DENY the certificate of probable 

cause. APPEAL DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6384 Document: 010110042228 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 2