Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06349/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06349-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Charles R. Glaze
Appellant
Steve Hargett
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL A-- J 

Unit.ed States Cm; rt of Appeah 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS- 'fenth Cir,;uit 

CHARLES R. GLAZE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEVE HARGETT and ATTORNEY GENERAL for 

the State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 1 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6349 

(D.C. No. CIV 92-606-T) 

(W. D. Okla . ) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges . ** 

Mr. Glaze, appearing prose and in forma pauperis, appeals 

from the denial of his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 

U. S.C. § 2254 and the district court's denial of a certificate of 

probable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The district court 

overruled Mr. Glaze's objections to the magistrate's report and 

recommendation. Mr. Glaze contends that his plea to second degree 

burglary after the former conviction of two or more felonies is 

invalid. We grant a certificate of probable cause and affirm. 

* 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. 

** After examining the petitioner's brief 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 cause therefore is 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-6349 Document: 010110175769 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 1 
Mr. Glaze argues that the state district court lacked a 

factual basis for his plea. Habeas jurisdiction is dependent on a 

federal constitutional violation. Herrera v. Collins, 61 U.S.L.W. 

4108, 4110-11 (1993). The absence of a record indicating a 

factual basis for a state plea is not a federal constitutional 

claim. Sena v. Romero, 617 F.2d 579, 581 (10th Cir. 1980); 

Freeman v. Page, 443 F.2d 493, 497 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 

U.S . 1001 (1971). Nor are there circumstances in this case, such 

as a plea accompanied with statements of innocence, which might 

require an inquiry into the factual basis for the plea. See North 

Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S . 25, 38 n.10 (1970); Banks v. 

McGougan, 717 F . 2d 186, 188 (5th Cir. 1983). To the contrary, the 

record indicates that Mr. Glaze admitted the burglary and more 

than two prior convictions, both by affidavit and testimony at his 

plea hearing. These declarations are presumed correct. See 

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) . 

Mr. Glaze next suggests that, notwithstanding his guilty plea 

and admissions, the failure of the state to prove the prior felony 

convictions was required because his plea was not voluntary or 

intelligent. Aplt . Br. at 7 . Of course, an involuntary plea 

would contravene the Constitution in its own right, but such facts 

are not present on this record. Moreover, his plea waived any 

objections he might have had to the validity of the two prior 

felony convictions in the enhancement charge. See Johnson v. 

Puckett, 930 F.2d 445, 449 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 112 s . Ct. 252 

(1991); Long v. Mccotter, 792 F.2d 1338, 1340 (5th Cir. 1986). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6349 Document: 010110175769 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 2 
Finall y, Mr . Glaze contends that he was denied effecti ve 

assistance of counsel because counsel did not investigate his 

three former felony convictions, one of which has been set aside . 

To prev ail on an ineffective assistance claim, a petitioner must 

establish that his counsel's performance was deficient and that 

this deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v . 

Washington, 466 U.S . 668, 687 (1984) . In the context of 

ineffective assistance with respect to a guilty plea, prejudice 

means that petitioner would have elected a trial rather than a 

guilty plea. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S . 52, 60 (1985 ). Al though 

petitioner had one conviction set aside, he has not demonstrated 

deficient performance because he has urged no likely reason, 

supported by facts, why the other two convictions are invalid. To 

the contrary, petitioner appears to admit that one of the 

convictions is valid, Aplt. Br. at 7c-7d, and makes the unavailing 

argument , rejected by the state court, that a factual basis did 

not exist for the other even given his affidavit that "I broke 

into a house and I tried to run over a police officer." IR. doc. 

2, exhibits at 8. Under these circumstances, his ineffectiveness 

claim fails . See Laycock v . New Mexico, 880 F.2d 1184, 1187 {10th 

Cir. 1989 ) . 

AFFIRMED . The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6349 Document: 010110175769 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 3 
,.,_ 

Appellate Case: 92-6349 Document: 010110175769 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 4