Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07024/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melvin James Battiest
Appellant
Jack Cowley
Appellee

Document Text:

, 

' FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALglnited States Court of Appeals - Tenth Circuit 

MELVIN JAMES BATTIEST, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

TENTH CIRCUIT NUV 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-7024 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. 89-316-C) 

JACK COWLEY, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

(E. Dist. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

Petitioner Melvin James Battiest appeals the dismissal of his 

petition for habeas corpus for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

We grant in forma pauperis status and a certificate of probable 

cause, and reverse. 

Battiest filed a petition for state post conviction relief 

claiming that he was denied effective assistance of appellate 

counsel on direct appeal because his counsel failed to raise five 

issues listed -by Battiest. The state court denied his petition. 

*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: 90-7024 Document: 010110047563 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 1 
Battiest then filed a habeas petition in federal court 

raising the same one issue, ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel. In its response to the petition, the state conceded 

exhaustion, Doc. 5 at 2, and argued that petitioner had not 

established ineffectiveness. In so doing, the state characterized 

the five underlying issues that counsel failed to raise as "bald 

assertions" that were insufficient to sustain Battiest's burden of 

establishing prejudice, id. at 4. In his objection to the state's 

response, Battiest complained about the state's failure to address 

the merits of the alleged five errors underlying the 

ineffectiveness claim. See Doc. 4 at 3-4. 

The magistrate construed Battiest's response as making six 

direct claims of constitutional error, ineffectiveness of counsel 

plus the five underlying issues. Doc. 10 at 3. He then found 

that only the ineffectiveness claim had been exhausted and 

recommended dismissal of the petition. The district court agreed 

and dismissed the case for failure to exhaust all issues. 

We cannot agree with this construction of Battiest's papers. 

He made one claim in his state petition, ineffective assistance of 

counsel, and the state courts addressed that one claim. He made 

the same one claim in his federal petition, and the state 

responded to that one claim. Nowhere did the state assert that 

petitioner was attempting to raise unexhausted claims. Moreover, 

in Battiest's objection to the magistrate's proposed findings and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7024 Document: 010110047563 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 2 
, 

\ 

~ 

recommendations, Battiest asserted that he was making one claim 

supported by five issues. See Doc. 11 at 2. He argued that his 

petition could not be dismissed for failure to exhaust simply 

because the state courts chose not to specifically address the 

underlying issues he had raised. 

We conclude that, fairly read, Battiest has raised the five 

issues only as support for his claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. This claim has clearly been exhausted. The judgment of 

the district court is REVERSED, and the action is remanded for 

further proceedings. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-7024 Document: 010110047563 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 3