Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02498/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02498-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eloy Mondragon
Appellee
Sammy Sauceda
Appellant

Document Text:

.J FILI: :) U!tired Scares C.ou~ . UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cii 

SAMMY SAUCEDA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ELOY MONDRAGON, Warden, 

Southern New Mexico 

Correctional Facility, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MAY 7- 19~1 

ROBERT L. HOL~l(ER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2498 

(D.C. No. 86-93SSC) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, BARRETT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

Sammy Sauceda brought this petition pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

S 2254 (1988) for habeas corpus relief from a state court judgment 

of conviction. The district court denied relief. We affirm in 

part and reverse in part. 

In his federal petition, Sauceda sought relief on three basic 

grounds: 1) his wife's consent to search their home was not given 

voluntarily; 2) the admission of state's exhibit one and the 

prosecutor's conduct with regard to that exhibit denied him a fair 

trial; and 3) the admission of state's exhibit three denied him a 

*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: 87-2498 Document: 010110106491 Date Filed: 05/07/1991 Page: 1 
.. fair trial. The district court concluded that federal habeas 

relief on the basis of the consent claim was barred under Stone v. 

Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). The court further held that 

Sauceda's other claims were barred under the cause and prejudice 

test of Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977), and its progeny. 

I. 

The Supreme Court has held that "where the State has provided 

an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment 

claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas relief 

on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional corpus 

search and seizure was introduced at his trial." Stone v. Powell, 

428 U.S. at 494 (footnote omitted). We have carefully reviewed 

the record, ·and have considered the arguments and authorities 

presented in the appeal of this issue. We are convinced that 

Sauceda had an opportunity for a full and fair hearing on the 

issue of the voluntariness of his wife's consent to the search at 

issue. We therefore affirm the denial of relief on this claim. 

II. 

We reach a different result, however, with respect to 

Sauceda's remaining claims. The Supreme Court has held that "a 

procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2498 Document: 010110106491 Date Filed: 05/07/1991 Page: 2 
on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court 

rendering a judgment in the case "'clearly and expressly' states 

that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar." Harris v. 

Reed, 109 S. Ct. 1038, 1043 (1989)(citation omitted). 1 Here, 

Sauceda's final attempt to raise these claims in state court was 

an original petition for writ of habeas corpus filed with the 

state supreme court. That court denied the writ without comment. 

Thus, the last court rendering a judgment in the case did not 

plainly state that its decision rested on a state procedural bar. 

Accordingly, federal collateral review of these claims is not 

barred and we remand for consideration on the merits. 

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

1 This court has held that the ruling in Harris applies 

retroactively. See Shafer v. Stratton, 906 F.2d 506, 509 n.3 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 393 (1990). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-2498 Document: 010110106491 Date Filed: 05/07/1991 Page: 3