Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05210/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05210-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert H. Henry
Appellee
Mike Parsons
Appellee
Dennis Stephen Waldon
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FILED 

Uoited States Courc of Appeals 

Tenth Cfrcuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUL 3 1 1 

----------ROBERTLHOECKER 

Clerk 

DENNIS STEPHEN WALDON, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MIKE PARSONS, Warden, and ) 

ROBERT H. HENRY, Attorney General, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

No. 90-5210 

(D.C. No. 90-C-216-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

Mr. Waldon is a state prisoner. He was convicted upon entry 

* 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: 90-5210 Document: 010110128833 Date Filed: 07/03/1991 Page: 1 
-

of guilty pleas of two separate felonies in two separate criminal 

cases in state court. Under the first conviction, knowingly 

concealing stolen property, Mr. Waldon was sentenced to five 

years. Under the second conviction, armed robbery after former 

conviction of a felony, Mr. Waldon was sentenced to twelve years, 

to follow the first sentence consecutively. 

Mr. Waldon previously filed a federal habeas corpus action 

challenging his conviction for knowingly concealing stolen 

property alleging his guilty plea was not entered with full 

knowledge. The district court found on the merits that Mr. 

Waldon's guilty plea was constitutionally sound. 

In this second habeas corpus petition, Mr. Waldon contends 

his first conviction was invalid as his guilty plea was entered 

without being fully informed or advised of all his rights. This 

petition for habeas relief was referred to the magistrate who 

recommended it be dismissed under Rule 9 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 [habeas corpus] Cases in the United States District 

Courts, and that the ends of justice would not be served by again 

reaching the merits of a second habeas corpus petition asserting 

grounds already asserted in the first petition. The magistrate 

also concluded Mr. Waldon was not "in custody" as he had completed 

serving his five year sentence on the first conviction. The 

district court adopted the magistrate's Report and Recommendation. 

Mr. Waldon appeals prose asserting: (1) he is "in custody" 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5210 Document: 010110128833 Date Filed: 07/03/1991 Page: 2 
-

as the service of his second sentence was delayed; and (2) the 

district court failed to give him: specific notice that it was 

considering dismissal of his successive petition; ten days to 

explain why a repetitive petition deserves reconsideration; and a 

model form for use in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases involving a Rule 9 

issue to explain the successive habeas petition. 

We consider Mr. Waldon's second claim first. Mr. Waldon was 

given the magistrate's Report and Recommendation and filed 

objections thereto. The district court considered and rejected 

Mr. Waldon's objections. Thus, sufficient notice and opportunity 

to explain why a repetitive petition deserved reconsideration was 

given to Mr. Waldon. In addition, Mr. Waldon's second habeas 

corpus petition fails to allege cause for his failure to raise 

these ground in his first habeas corpus petition. Finally, we are 

unable to find an affirmative requirement imposed on the district 

court to provide petitioner a model response form involving a Rule 

9 issue. Having found Mr. Waldon had sufficient opportunity to 

present his arguments, both in his Traverse to Motion to Dismiss 

and in his objections to the "Magistrates R & R", we do not find 

any prejudice resulted from the court's failure to provide Mr. 

Waldon with a model form. We therefore hold the district court 

properly denied Mr. Waldon habeas relief. 

Having so decided, we need not determine whether Mr. Waldon 

satisfied the "in custody" requirement. See Malena v. Cook, 490 

U.S. 488 (1989). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5210 Document: 010110128833 Date Filed: 07/03/1991 Page: 3 
-

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5210 Document: 010110128833 Date Filed: 07/03/1991 Page: 4