Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06164/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David W. Hall
Appellant
Denise Spears
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG O t 1992 

:S.OBERT L. HOECEE--

DAVID W. HALL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

DENISE SPEARS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

wV --• enerr. 

No. 92-6164 

(D. C. No. 91-CV-971) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Hall, an Oklahoma State inmate, appeals the dismissal of 

his pro se petition for habeas relief. We grant permission for 

Mr. Hall to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. 

* 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: 92-6164 Document: 010110259049 Date Filed: 08/04/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Hall, in June 1990, entered guilty pleas in Oklahoma to 

several counts of sexual offenses and a firearm charge, all after 

conviction of a former felony. The prior conviction took place in 

the State of Iowa, and it was this conviction that resulted in an 

enhancement of his Oklahoma sentences, which were ten years each 

to run concurrently. 

Mr. Hall, in his prose petition, claimed his guilty plea to 

some of the Oklahoma convictions was not knowingly and voluntarily 

entered as the prior Iowa conviction used to enhance his Oklahoma 

sentence was invalid. Mr. Hall asserted in a conclusory fashion 

that the Iowa conviction was coerced, was a product of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, was a product of the Iowa court's failure 

to advise him of his rights, and was accomplished without a 

competency hearing. 

Mr. Hall pursued his remedies in the Oklahoma courts, which 

held: (1) the proper method of attacking a former conviction is 

in the state imposing the conviction, i.e., Iowa; and (2) Mr. Hall 

failed to adequately explain his failure to directly appeal the 

Iowa conviction and he was therefore procedurally barred from 

presenting this claim to the Oklahoma courts. However, the 

Oklahoma courts stated Mr. Hall could again come before them and 

receive relief if he successfully challenged his Iowa conviction 

in the Iowa courts. 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 92-6164 Document: 010110259049 Date Filed: 08/04/1992 Page: 2
The bottom line is that no state court has addressed the 

merits of Mr. Hall's claims concerning his Iowa conviction. To 

make this situation more interesting, the State of Oklahoma failed 

to raise the issue of exhaustion and instead conceded Mr. Hall had 

exhausted his state remedies. Mr. Hall alleged he had no Iowa 

trial court records to support his claim. 

The district court dismissed Mr. Hall's petition without 

prejudice until Mr. Hall properly challenged his Iowa conviction 

in the Iowa courts. 1 The district court reasoned that as Iowa has 

all of the court records, it is in a better position to hear and 

weigh any evidence bearing on the validity of the Iowa conviction 

and is better equipped to apply Iowa law. 

In his prose appeal of this decision, Mr. Hall raises the 

same six arguments raised in the district court, i.e., the Iowa 

conviction is constitutionally invalid, and asserts he is 

attacking the Oklahoma sentence that was enhanced by the invalid 

Iowa conviction. 

respond. 2 

The State of Oklahoma has elected not to 

1 The district court dismissed until Mr. Hall "successfully 

challenged" the prior conviction in the Iowa courts. We assume 

the word "successfully" was inadvertently used to mean allowing 

the Iowa courts an opportunity to review Mr. Hall's claims. 

2 States undoubtedly save time and money in electing this course 

of action. In so doing, the state shifts its burden of examining 

the other side of the coin to this Court. Oklahoma's position 

before the trial court was that Mr. Hall's petition was an attempt 

to appeal the prior Iowa conviction and an assertion that the 

district court lacked jurisdiction. We simply note this Court 

always appreciates a response by the state. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6164 Document: 010110259049 Date Filed: 08/04/1992 Page: 3
28 u.s.c. § 2254(b) provides that an application for habeas 

shall not be granted "unless it appears that the applicant has 

exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State." The 

question we must answer is which state: the state imposing the 

enhanced sentence, or the state where the conviction arose which 

gives rise to the enhanced sentence? 

The exhaustion doctrine is designed to protect the state 

court's role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent 

disruption of state judicial proceedings. It is therefore 

improper to upset a state court conviction without any opportunity 

to the state court to correct an alleged constitutional violation. 

In the case before us, it would be equally improper for either an 

Oklahoma court or a federal court to upset an Iowa conviction 

without first extending to Iowa the opportunity to correct any 

alleged constitutional violations. We therefore hold that when a 

conviction is attacked under 28 u.s.c. § 2254, the petitioner 

attacking the conviction must first exhaust available remedies in 

the state of conviction or bring himself within one of the 

exceptions to the exhaustion rule. Mr. Hall has done neither. 

Mr. Hall misperceives the "in custody" requirement and argues 

the federal district court has jurisdiction as he is "in custody" 

because of the Iowa conviction's use in enhancing his Oklahoma 

sentence. Mr. Hall cites Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989); 

Gamble v. Parsons, 898 F.2d 117 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6164 Document: 010110259049 Date Filed: 08/04/1992 Page: 4
Ct. 212 (1990); and Lowery v. Young, 887 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 

1989). All three cases hold a state prisoner is in custody when 

another state has imposed a conviction used to enhance 

petitioner's present sentence. Mr. Hall is indeed "in custody"; 

however, this does not excuse him from the requirement of 

exhausting his remedies in the state imposing the conviction he 

now challenges. The "in custody" requirement is basically 

jurisdictional while the exhaustion requirement is founded upon 

principles of comity. 

Mr. Hall must exhaust his state remedies by first challenging 

his Iowa conviction in the Iowa courts, then the Oklahoma courts 

and the federal courts become available for Mr. Hall to pursue his 

remedy. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-6164 Document: 010110259049 Date Filed: 08/04/1992 Page: 5