Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06013/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06013-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Cecil Charles Evans
Appellant
Ed Evans
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CECIL CHARLES EVANS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

F I L Jjj D 

United Sta~ !l Court of Appeab rr~,...f ' .. r'~- --,.;• 

MA'f O G 1992 

R.OBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerl~ 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-6013 

ED EVANS, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee, 

and 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondent. 

(W.D. Okla. No. CIV-91-1395-A) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge . 

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 case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Cecil Charles Evans, the appellant, pleaded guilty to the 

* 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: 92-6013 Document: 010110247636 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 1
crime of unlawful distribution of marijuana after former 

conviction of a felony and was sentenced to thirteen years 

imprisonment, with three years suspended. He now challenges his 

conviction by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2254. The United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the writ of habeas 

corpus and dismissed the case . 

Cecil Evans now appeals, 1 alleging (1) that he was denied his 

Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because 

his trial counsel did not investigate the validity of prior felony 

convictions used to enhance his sentence and (2) that the district 

court enhanced his sentence based upon an unconstitutional prior 

conviction. We affirm for the reasons detailed in the magistrate 

judge's report. 

We affirm with respect to the appellant's ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim because the appellant did not show 

that "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness" as required by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668, 688 (1984). Nor did he show prejudice--specifically, that 

"there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, 

he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going 

to trial"--as required by Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 

(1985). 

We affirm with respect to the appellant's unconstitutional 

enhancement claim because the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 

1 The appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause is 

granted. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-6013 Document: 010110247636 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 2
refused to consider the merits of this claim on the basis that it 

was not raised on direct appeal. This refusal constitutes an 

adequate and independent state ground barring federal habeas 

review of the claim "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for 

the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged 

violation of federal law, or demonstrate that fail ure to consider 

the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." 

Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2565 (1991). We agree with 

the magistrate judge's conclusion that the appellant has not 

satisfied this standard. 

For the reasons set forth above and detailed in the 

magistrate judge's report, we AFFIRM the decision of the district 

court. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-6013 Document: 010110247636 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 3