Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06184/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Solomon Broadus
Appellant
Jack Cowley
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SOLOMON BROADUS, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JACK COWLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

FILED 

United Scares C-ourt of Appeals 

Tenrh Circuit 

MAY 2 5 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6184 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(CIV-89-0131-R) 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

Solomon Broadus (the Petitioner), appeals ~ se the 

dismissal of his latest petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. In 

* 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: 89-6184 Document: 01019970533 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 1 
1977, the Petitioner filed a previous Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, attacking the same conviction1 he challenges herein. The 

district court denied relief, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the 

decision of the district court and denied Petitioner's Petition 

for Rehearing. 

In his latest petition, the Petitioner alleges the conviction 

was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 2 The 

Respondent asserted that the district court should dismiss the 

petition as an abuse of the writ pursuant to Rule 9(b), Supreme 

Court Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Courts. The district court concluded: 

In the absence of any showing of cause for the 

Petitioner's state court procedural default on appeal, 

or prejudice from the default, and, alternatively, in 

the absence of any showing sufficient to overcome the 

preclusion in Rule 9(b), habeas review of Petitioner's 

claim is foreclosed. 

Opinion and Order, May 15, 1989, at 7. Accordingly, the district 

court dismissed the latest petition. 

On appeal, the Petitioner generally alleges: (1) trial 

counsel's representation was unconstitutionally ineffective: (2) 

the state conviction was obtained with evidence seized in 

1 The Petitioner was convicted in state court for Unlawful 

Distribution of a Controlled and Dangerous Substance, Heroin, and 

served his sentence. The conviction was used to enhance the 

sentence in subsequent prosecutions. 

2 The Petitioner was videotaped talking to an informant. He 

contends that the use of this videotape in evidence against him 

without first obtaining a search warrant violated his rights under 

Oklahoma law and the Fourth Amendment. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6184 Document: 01019970533 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 2 
violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights; and (3) the federal 

district court improperly applied the doctrines of procedural bar 

and abuse of the writ. We affirm. 

The dispositive issue before us is the district court's 

application of the doctrines of procedural bar and abuse of the 

writ. Rule 9. The district court found that previously the 

Petitioner had attacked the same conviction challenged herein, and 

concluded that the Petitioner advanced no justifiable reason for 

his failure to raise the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim in 

the petition which he filed in 1977. The court further noted that 

the latest application for post-conviction relief in the state 

court resulted in the state court clearly and expressly ruling 

that the Petitioner could and should have raised this issue either 

in his direct appeal or in his first post-conviction application. 

The district court ruled that the Petitioner's procedural default 

bars consideration of this habeas petition because he failed to 

establish cause for the state court procedural default or 

prejudice from the default. We agree with the district court. 

Rule 9(b) codifies the Supreme Court's holding in Sanders v. 

United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963), which recognized that courts 

have some discretion when faced with successive habeas petitions. 3 

The purpose of Rule 9(b) is to provide federal courts the power to 

prevent "piecemeal" litigation in habeas actions of claims that 

3 This discussion of the law is borrowed heavily from the 

district court's Opinion and Order dated May 15, 1989. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6184 Document: 01019970533 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 3 
have been or could have been presented in earlier petitions. 

Woodard v. Hutchins, 464 U.S. 377, 379-80 (1984) (Powell, J., 

concurring). See also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895 

(1983). In In re Shriner, 735 F.2d 1236 (11th Cir. 1984), the 

Eleventh Circuit explained the application of Rule 9(b) as 

follows: 

Under Rule 9(b) there are two grounds upon which 

subsequent petitions for habeas corpus may be denied. 

The first occurs when the claims of the petitioner are 

not "new or different." This ococurs when the 

petitioner raises essentially the same legal arguments 

that he put forth in his initial petition but merely 

alleges or presents new or different factual support for 

those claims. The second occurs when the petitioner 

presents new grounds for relief but his failure to 

present those grounds in his first petition was the 

result of deliberate withholding or inexcusable neglect. 

Once the state alleges an abuse of the writ, the burden 

falls on the petitioner to demonstrate that his earlier 

failure to raise an issue was not the result of intent 

or neglect. 

Id. at 1239-1240 (citations omitted). 

On April 10, 1989, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 9(b), for abuse of the writ. The Petitioner did 

not respond to the motion to demonstrate that his earlier failure 

to raise the issue was excusable. The district court found that 

the Petitioner had abused the writ and had incorrectly stated on 

his prose application that he had filed a previous petition 

attacking his conviction. 

Citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), the 

Petitioner now contends that the issue he was raising represents a 

change in the law that he could not have anticipated. Kimmelman, 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6184 Document: 01019970533 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 4 
however, does not excuse the petitioner's omission from the 

previous petition of the claim asserted herein. In Kimmelman, the 

Supreme Court addressed the issue of 

whether the restrictions on federal habeas review of 

Fourth Amendment claims announced in Stone v. Powell, 

428 U.S. 465, 49 L. Ed.2d 1067 (1976), should be 

extended to Sixth Amendment claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel where the principal allegation and 

manifestation of inadequate representation is counsel's 

failure to file a timely motion to suppress evidence 

allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

Id. at 368. Kimmelman is inapposite to the Petitioner's claim 

that a search warrant should have been obtained prior to the use 

in evidence of a videotape of him by law enforcement officers. 

Even more compelling is the fact that the Petitioner's latest 

application for post-conviction relief in the state courts was 

denied on the ground that the issues raised therein should have 

been raised on the Petitioner's direct appeal or in his first 

post-conviction application. Broadus v. Oklahoma County Dist. 

Court, No. PC-88-205 (Okla. Crim. , denied April 4, 1988). We 

agree with the district court that since the state court clearly 

and expressly stated that its judgment relied on state common law 

and statutory procedural rules, the Petitioner's procedural 

default bars consideration of his habeas petition unless the 

Petitioner establishes cause for and prejudice stemming from his 

default. Harris v. Reed, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 1039 (1989). See 

Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). The Petitioner has 

failed to show cause for or prejudice stemming from his default. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6184 Document: 01019970533 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 5 
Accordingly, leave to appeal in forma pauperis is granted and 

the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-6184 Document: 01019970533 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 6