Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05075/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05075-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve Hargett
Appellee
Rudolph Alan Lee Jenkins
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RUDOLPH ALAN LEE JENKINS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEVE HARGETT, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

r1L 'ItD ls 

""r • ·" ' State~ (tmit of Appca APPEALDOlteo h c· cuit 'tent ir 

NOV 5 ,990 

R.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5075 

(D.C. No. 89-C-710-E) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before McKAY, MOORE, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal arises from the United States District Court for 

the District of Oklahoma's dismissal of appellant's prose petition for habeas relief under 28 u.s.c. § 2254(d) (1988). Appellant challenges his conviction in state court of two counts of 

* 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: 90-5075 Document: 010110047506 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 1 
I • \,. 

, ) 

second degree burglary after a former conviction of a felony. 

Many of appellant's allegations center around his plea of guilty. 

Appellant argues that the state court was without jurisdiction to 

accept his guilty plea, and that the plea was the result of his 

ignorance and misunderstanding. Appellant hinges these arguments 

on his contention that the sentences were improperly enhanced. He 

also claims ineffective assistance of counsel due to the alleged 

improper enhancement of his sentences. Appellant finally argues a 

deprivation of constitutional rights because he was not afforded a 

post-examination competency hearing. 

Plaintiff-appellant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal 

without prepayment of costs or fees and motion for a certificate 

of probable cause is grant.ed, and we proceed to the merits of the 

case. 

The district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation that appellant's petition be dismissed. In addition, 

the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to deny 

what was effectively a motion by appellant for a default judgment 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Appellant argued that a writ of habeas 

corpus should be issued because the state filed a copy of the 

records of the case four days after it was required to do so by 

order of the magistrate. The district court adopted the 

magistrate's finding that the delay did not amount to a due 

process violation. See Stines v. Martin, 849 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5075 Document: 010110047506 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 2 
1988). 

After review of appellant's arguments, the briefs filed in 

the district court, the record, and the magistrate's report and 

recommendations, we agree with the district court's dismissal of 

appellant's habeas petition for substantially the reasons set 

forth in the magistrate's and district court's opinions. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5075 Document: 010110047506 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 3