Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02233/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02233-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy Neal Kinslow
Appellant
Robert Tansy
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL O 7 1992 

ROBH'!iT L. HOECK=.:~ 

Cle:l: 

JIMMY NEAL KINSLOW, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT TANSY, Warden, PNM, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-2233 

) (D.C. No. CIV 88-93 JP) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court 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 case is therefore ordered 

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: 91-2233 Document: 010110259086 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 1
Petitioner Jimmy Neal Kinslow appeals from an order of the 

district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c . § 2254. We affirm. 

In 1978, Kinslow entered guilty pleas to three counts of 

first degree murder. He was sentenced to two consecutive life 

sentences and one concurrent life sentence. He did not take a 

direct appeal. Kinslow filed a state post-conviction proceeding 

in 1986 in which he exhausted his state court remedies as to the 

claims raised here. 

In his federal petition, Kinslow alleged that his 

constitutional rights had been violated because his guilty pleas 

were involuntary. Kinslow also alleged he was incompetent to 

enter the pleas and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. 

The district court rejected Kinslow' s contentions. On appeal, 

Kinslow argues that the district court's ruling was in error. 

Kinslow pled guilty to three counts of first degree murder. 

Kinslow alleged that he agreed to plead guilty only because he 

understood the sentences would be imposed concurrently and he 

would be incarcerated outside of the State of New Mexico. Kinslow 

concluded that because he did not receive concurrent sentences, he 

was misled and, consequently, his plea was involuntary. 

"Whether a plea is voluntary is a question of federal law 

subject to de novo review. " Laycock v . New Mexico, 880 F.2d 1184, 

1186 (10th Cir. 1989)(citing Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S . 422, 

431 (1983)) . A plea is involuntary if the defendant was 

materially misinformed as to the consequences or disposition that 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-2233 Document: 010110259086 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 2
the court will make . Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n . 8 

(1977). 

The district court held that Kinslow had to meet the 

standards set forth by the Fifth Circuit to prevail on this claim. 

See United States v. Smith, 915 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1990) . In 

Smith, the court held that when a petitioner alleges promises were 

made which were "inconsistent with representations made in open 

court when his guilty plea was accepted, a petitioner must 

"'"prove (1) exactly what the terms of the alleged promise were; 

(2) exactly when, where, and by whom such a promise was made; and 

(3) the precise identity of an eyewitness to the promise." ' " Id. 

at 963 (quoting Harmason v. Smith, 888 F.2d 1527, 1529 (5th Cir. 

1989)(quoting Davis v . Butler, 825 F.2d 892, 894 (5th Cir. 1987)) . 

As noted by Kinslow in his brief, this circuit has not 

adopted the Smith criteria. However, the district court ' s 

reliance on Smith is not reversible error. Kinslow cannot prevail 

under either the Smith criteria or the standard set by this 

circuit. We have held that to prevail on this type of c l aim, a 

petitioner must prove that the consequences of the plea were 

materially misrepresented. See Laycock, 880 F . 2d at 1186. 

The record shows that both counsel and the court stated that 

the court alone would decide whether the sentences would run 

concurrently or consecutively. See R. Vol . II, Tr. of Arraignment 

Hr'g at 7-8. Kinslow assured the court that he understood that 

fact. Id. at 8. Kinslow contends his assurances were proforma. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-2233 Document: 010110259086 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 3
"Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption 

of verity." Blackledge, 431 U.S. at 74. A "defendant's 

statements at a plea hearing 'should be regarded as conclusive [as 

to truth and accuracy] in the absence of a believable, valid 

reason justifying a departure from the apparent truth' of those 

statements." United States v. Estrada, 849 F.2d 1304, 1306 (10th 

Cir. 1988)(quoting Hedman v. United States, 527 F.2d 20, 22 (10th 

Cir. 1975)). Kinslow has presented no evidence to support his 

allegations nor has he shown why we should disregard the truth of 

the statements he made in open court. Kinslow cannot prevail on 

this issue . 

Kinslow also argues he was not competent to enter the guilty 

pleas. He argues that his understanding of the proceedings was 

impaired because he was on tranquilizers, was confused and afraid, 

and felt guilty. See Appellant's Br. at 6. "A trial court must 

order a hearing to determine the defendant's competency if 

information comes to the trial court's attention that raises a 

bona fide doubt about the defendant's competency to stand trial." 

United States v. Newman, 733 F.2d 1395, 1400 (10th Cir. 

1984)(citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 (1966)). 

The record shows Kinslow did not put his competency at issue. 

Counsel requested a psychiatric examination only "to reassure 

myself and the Court and also you, Mr. Garza, [the district 

attorney], that he was sane," R. Vol. II, Tr. of Arraignment Hr'g 

at 22, not because he was making a claim of incompetency, id. The 

examining psychiatrist concluded Kinslow was competent. The court 

questioned Kinslow about his history of mental treatment. We 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-2233 Document: 010110259086 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 4
cannot say the trial court erred in not further exploring 

Kinslow's competency based on the record before it. 

Finally, Kinslow argues he was denied effective assistance of 

counsel because counsel did not perfect an appeal as directed. 

"[B]ecause appeals are a part of the criminal process, a defendant 

is denied effective assistance of counsel if he asks his lawyer to 

perfect an appeal and the lawyer fails to do so by failing to file 

a brief, a statement of appeal, or otherwise." Abels v. Kaiser, 

913 F.2d 821, 823 (10th Cir. 1990)(citations omitted). 

To prevail on this argument, Kinslow must establish that 

counsel failed to perfect an appeal as actually requested. Cf. 

United States v. Davis, 929 F . 2d 554, 557 (10th Cir. 1991). The 

record contains no such evidence. Kinslow attempts to argue that 

the fact that the trial court stated his appeal rights in its 

judgment and sentence is proof he requested an appeal . Kinslow is 

wrong. Further, the magistrate judge found that Kinslow's 

testimony on this issue was "self-serving and inherently 

incredible." R. Vol. I, tab 43 at 5. We agree that "[t]here is 

nothing in the record to support that this request was made." Id. 

Kinslow's motion for a certificate of probable cause is 

GRANTED. The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-2233 Document: 010110259086 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 5