Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07150/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07150-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Appellee
Danny Gene Fritchie
Appellant
People of the State of Oklahoma
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS L D 

F I Leiourt of Appe&ll United sr:th Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT 

----------------

DANNY GENE FRITCHIE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

OKLAHOMA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 2 'J 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-7150 

(D.C. No. CIV-92-90-S) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE 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. Fritchie, a prose litigant, appeals the denial of habeas 

corpus relief. We grant permission to proceed in forma pauperis 

* 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: 92-7150 Document: 010110212848 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 1 
and affirm. 

Mr. Fritchie filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the 

validity of a 1966 second degree burglary conviction in Oklahoma 

for which he was sentenced to two years. The State moved to 

dismiss asserting: (1 ) Mr. Fritchie failed to exhaust his state 

remedies; and (2) Mr. Fritchie was not "in custody." Mr. Fritchie 

filed a response admitting his failure to exhaust state remedies. 

The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge 

who, in part on the basis of Mr. Fritchie's admission, recommended 

dismissal of the habeas corpus action. Mr. Fritchie responded to 

this recommendation by alleging: "Following such admission 

petitioner conferred with legal counsel and counsel has 

informed petitioner that he HAS exhausted his state remedies." 

The district court nevertheless adopted the magistrate judge's 

findings and dismissed. Mr. Fritchie appeals this decision 

asserting he exhausted his state remedies. 

Looking at the record, we find Mr. Fritchie entered a guilty 

plea to his 1966 conviction and failed to appeal. Twenty-five 

years later, Mr. Fritchie attempted to attack this conviction in 

the state courts with a Petition for Error Coram Nobis. This 

action was dismissed by the Oklahoma Court holding Mr. Fritchie 

was procedurally barred due to his failure to file a direct 

appeal. Subsequent actions were filed in state court and they too 

were dismissed. The bottom line is that Mr. Fritchie attempted to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7150 Document: 010110212848 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 2 
have the merits of his case decided by the Oklahoma courts and 

never succeeded due to the procedural bar created by his initial 

failure to appeal. 

In order to have his case heard and decided by a federal 

court under these circumstances, Mr. Fritchie has the burden of 

demonstrating both cause for defaulting his federal claims in 

state court, and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged 

violation of federal law. Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S . Ct. 2546, 

2565 (1991 ) . Mr. Fritchie alleged he didn't know he had a right 

to appeal the entry of his guilty plea. This i s inadequate cause 

as "'cause' under the cause and prejudice test must be something 

external to the petitioner, something that cannot fairly be 

attributed to him." Id. at 2566. Additionally, Mr. Fritchie has 

failed to show prejudice. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

- 3-

- - --- -- -

Appellate Case: 92-7150 Document: 010110212848 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-7150 Document: 010110212848 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 4