Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06275/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06275-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deronda Charles Kight
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL ~ D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS {Jo,itoo ·Stat~(l Ci~~rt of Ap,c:.h Tr-"'\1.'A. ( .-,..,JI•. 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL O 8 1992 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DERONDA CHARLES KIGHT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

lU)IiER'f L. HOECKEE 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-6275 

) (D.C. No. CIV-91-804-R) 

) (W.D. Okla . ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

On September 29, 1987, defendant Deronda Charles Kight entered a guilty plea to a superseding information charging him with 

robbery by force of the Heritage Savings and Loan in Hinton, Oklahoma, in violation of 18 u.s.c. S 2113(a). The court accepted 

* 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: 91-6275 Document: 010110259093 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 1
defendant's guilty plea, sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment, and ordered him to pay $29,790.00 in restitution to the savings and loan. Defendant did not appeal his conviction. 

On December 11, 1989, more than two years after his sentencing, defendant filed his first federal application for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2255, alleging that (1) his 

guilty plea was involuntary; (2) he lacked full understanding of 

the nature and consequences of his plea due to his counsel's misrepresentations; (3) he was not afforded effective assistance of 

counsel; (4) the court did not consider his cooperation in deciding an appropriate sentence; (5) in sentencing defendant the court 

and counsel had violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 

35; and (6) the district court erred in not sentencing defendant 

under the Sentencing Guidelines. In an exhaustive and wellsupported eighteen-page order, the district court addressed 

defendant's claims and found them to be without merit. 

Defendant's subsequent appeal to this court was voluntarily dismissed. 

Defendant filed a second federal habeas petition, under 

S 2255, on June 3, 1991, again claiming that his plea was involuntary, was induced by "false promises" by the assistant United 

States attorney, and that the government failed to comply with the 

plea agreement by failing to inform the sentencing court of 

defendant's cooperation in the investigation of the crime. The 

district court dismissed this petition as successive. It is from 

this decision that defendant appeals. After careful review of 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6275 Document: 010110259093 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 2
both petitions, the record on appeal, and the briefs of the parties, we agree with the district court's determination and affirm. 

Title 28 u.s.c. S 2244(a) provides: 

(a) No circuit or district judge shall be required 

to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus 

to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a 

judgment of a court of the United States if it appears 

that the legality of such detention has been determined 

by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition 

presents no new ground not theretofore presented and 

determined, and the judge of court is satisfied that the 

ends of justice will not be served by such inquiry. 

In Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963), the Supreme 

Court stated that a subsequent petition for relief under S 2255 

must be dismissed if, "(l) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the 

prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, 

and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the 

merits of the subsequent application . " Id. at 15. 

In Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986), the Court further 

refined the Sanders test by deciding under what circumstances a 

court would be required to conduct an "ends of justice" review of 

a successive petition. Id. at 451-52. The Court concluded that 

serving the "ends of justice" would "require federal courts to 

entertain such petitions only where the prisoner supplements his 

constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence." Id. at 454; see also Andrews v. Deland, 943 F .·2d 1162, 

1172 (10th Cir. 199l)(successive petitions are to be evaluated 

under the "factual innocence" test of Kuhlmann v. Wilson, or the 

three-part test set forth in Sanders v. United States), cert. denied, 112 s. Ct. 1213 (1992). 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6275 Document: 010110259093 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 3
Defendant admitted his guilt at the time of sentencing. His 

only complaints, in both petitions, appear to be concerned with 

the circumstances of his acceptance of the plea agreement and his 

resulting sentence, and not the reality of his guilt or innocence. 

It is clear from the record, that, with a few minor alterations 

and additions, the issues defendant raised in his second petition 

are essentially the same as those raised and adversely decided in 

his first petition. The district court thoroughly considered all 

of defendant's claims in its lengthy order denying the first petition. Defendant's second application advances no "colorable showing of factual innocence." Consequently, the district court correctly dismissed defendant's second petition as successive. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6275 Document: 010110259093 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 4