Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06373/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06373-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Segovia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL 1 4 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKE~ 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JESUS SEGOVIA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-6373 

(D.C. No. CR-91-144-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

Jesus Segovia appeals from a sentence entered after his plea 

of guilty to a one count indictment charging him with escape from 

*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: 91-6373 Document: 010110270409 Date Filed: 07/14/1992 Page: 1
the Federal Correctional Institution at El Reno, Oklahoma. After 

pleading guilty, Mr. Segovia apparently filed a prose pleading 

asserting he had been taken into federal custody in Texas at a 

point which would require adjustment of his sentence. That 

pleading is not a part of this record. After a full evidentiary 

hearing, the district court found there was no evidence to support 

Mr. Segovia's claim. On appeal, Mr. Segovia's counsel has filed 

an Anders brief asserting four separate issues, none of which were 

raised in the trial court. We affirm. 

After escaping from El Reno, an act which Mr. Segovia does 

not dispute, he ultimately wound up in the custody of the State of 

Texas on two state charges. After serving one sentence, Mr. 

Segovia was transported to another state institution to serve the 

other. The only issue presented to the district court was whether 

Mr. Segovia had been transported by a federal marshal from the 

first to the second state institution. That fact was placed in 

issue because Mr. Segovia contended he became a federal prisoner 

when he was taken into the custody of the U.S. Marshal. Because 

of that contention, defendant believes he is entitled to receive 

credit on his federal sentence for his Texas jail time. 

Prompted by this unusual claim, the district court conducted 

an evidentiary hearing into the underlying facts. When called 

upon, Mr. Segovia could not identify the person who transported 

him as a federal marshal. His only evidence consisted of a 

hearsay statement from an unidentified source in the second Texas 

institution that the person who delivered Mr. Segovia was a 

federal marshal. He stated, "I sincerely believe and I know that 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6373 Document: 010110270409 Date Filed: 07/14/1992 Page: 2
I was picked up by the U.S. Marshals on February 27th, 1991, 

because I was shown paperwork at the Harris County [jail] where it 

says that I was in federal in the federal marshal's custody, 

Your Honor. " 

The government's evidence consisted of the testimony of 

William Tsoodle, the deputy U.S. Marshal assigned to Mr. Segovia's 

case following his escape from El Reno. Deputy Tsoodle stated 

unequivocally Mr. Segovia was not picked up by any deputy marshal 

until he was released from custody in the second institution. He 

also affirmatively stated no federal marshal moved Mr. Segovia 

from one state institution to another. 

A memorandum from the U.S. Marshal's office in Austin, Texas, 

was identified by Deputy Tsoodle and introduced into evidence. 

Among other things, that memorandum stated that the City of 

Austin, from which Mr. Segovia was originally transferred has "a 

unit called City Marshals and they work closely with local 

authorities." 

On the basis of the facts before it, the district court found 

"no evidence to establish that Mr. Segovia was in federal custody 

. at any time or under any circumstances that would make his 

presence here in this case unauthorized, inappropriate or absent 

of jurisdiction." There is nothing in the record to indicate that 

finding is clearly erroneous. We therefore conclude there is no 

factual substance to Mr. Segovia's claim, his protestation to the 

contrary notwithstanding. 

The remaining issues Mr. Segovia wishes this court to 

consider are not before us. He failed to raise in the district 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6373 Document: 010110270409 Date Filed: 07/14/1992 Page: 3
court any question about the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, 

his Sixth Amendment and statutory rights to speedy trial, and his 

Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Those 

issues are more appropriate for collateral review, and because 

they were not raised in this case in the district court we will 

not consider them. 

This conclusion moots Mr. Segovia's prose motion to file a 

supplemental brief. That motion is accordingly denied as is 

counsel's motion for leave to withdraw. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-6373 Document: 010110270409 Date Filed: 07/14/1992 Page: 4