Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06369/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06369-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Jack Cowley
Appellee
Robert Eugene Webb
Appellant

Document Text:

FI LED 

Ut.,iced Srates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

APR 19 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT EUGENE WEBB, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JACK COWLEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL, State 

of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-6369 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(CIV-89-1235-R) 

Before MOORE, BRORBY and EBEL, 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 

* 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: 89-6369 Document: 01019971521 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 1 
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Webb was convicted of three separate felony counts in the 

state court of Oklahoma. These felonies were forcible sodomy, 

robbery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with intent to rape. 

Mr. Webb was thereupon sentenced to forty years in confinement. 

Mr. Webb pursued a direct appeal and post-conviction relief in 

state court. 

Mr. Webb then requested relief in the United States District 

Court, which denied his petition. He now appeals prose asserting 

numerous errors which can be summarized as ineffective assistance 

of counsel and the use of a prior federal conviction to enhance 

his state sentence. 

The United States District Court, in a written Memorandum 

Opinion, analyzed the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984}, and 

determined that Mr. Webb's assertions that his counsel proceeded 

to trial without adequate investigation and that his counsel 

failed to secure a critical witness were wholly unsupported. 

Concerning 

raise the 

Mr. Webb's argument that appellate counsel failed to 

issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and 

inadequately raised the issue of the propriety of the use of the 

prior federal conviction to enhance his sentence, the United 

States District Court determined this claim was likewise without 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6369 Document: 01019971521 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 2 
merit. The district court further determined that Mr. Webb failed 

to show, as required by Strickland, that counsel's representation 

was defective or that his defense was prejudiced. 

This court has reviewed the record on appeal and the 

arguments of Mr. Webb and is in agreement with the district court. 

Mr. Webb had previously been convicted in federal court for 

making a false and fictitious statement to obtain a firearm in 

violation of 21 u.s.c. § 922(a)(6). This conviction was used to 

enhance Mr. Webb's state court sentence as provided by Okl. Stat. 

tit. 21, § 54. Mr. Webb makes numerous assertions concerning the 

use of this federal court conviction. These assertions can be 

summarized by stating that Mr. Webb contends that the federal 

court conviction was not a crime under Oklahoma law. 

The issue of the propriety of the use of the prior federal 

conviction was raised on Mr. Webb's direct appeal. The Oklahoma 

Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that each element of the federal 

offense is also an element of the Oklahoma offense of obtaining 

property by false pretenses. See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1541.1 

(1981). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals thus ruled that 

the use of the prior federal conviction to enhance punishment was 

proper. Webb v. State, 732 P.2d 478, 480 (Okla. Crim. App.), 

cert. denied, 482 U.S. 930 (1987). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6369 Document: 01019971521 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 3 
In a later unpublished decision on appeal of petitioner's 

unrelated conviction the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 

that the same prior federal conviction was not a crime under 

Oklahoma law and could not be used to enhance punishment. See 

Webb v. State of Oklahoma, No. F-84-722 (Okla. Crim. App. May 4, 

1988). 

In view of the conflicting opinions Mr. Webb filed a postconviction application seeking to have the rule of the later 

unpublished case applied to his conviction. The Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals subsequently affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and expressly reaffirmed its holding in the 

direct appeal. Webb v. Oklahoma County Dist. Court, No. PC-89-294 

(Okla. Crim App. May 31, 1989). Mr. Webb then filed this habeas 

petition in the United States District Court. 

The United States District Court rejected 

enhancement claim, stating: 

Mr. Webb's 

11 [T]he characterization and effect under 

Oklahoma law of the prior conviction is a matter to be 

determined by the Oklahoma courts. This court is 

obligated to respect the state law and the state court's 

analysis thereof in determination of a purely state 

legal issue. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 167 (1977); 

Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 169 (1961); Spencer 

v. Zant, 715 F.2d 1562, 1571-1572 (11th Cir. 1983); 

Fischer v. State, 483 P.2d 1165, 1167-1168 (Okl.Cr. 

1971). The federal court is not required to compel the 

exercise of discretion by the state court to eliminate a 

perceived disparity in the application of a state 

statute." 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6369 Document: 01019971521 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 4 
Memorandum Opinion of District Court at 3 (quoting Webb v. Cowley, 

No. CIV-88-1524-R, sl. op. at 9 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 30, 1988)). The 

district court also found Mr. Webb's other claims to be without 

merit. 

With respect to Mr. Webb's claim that his sentence was 

enhanced improperly, it is beyond dispute that we must respect the 

Oklahoma courts' interpretation of Oklahoma law. However, we note 

that Oklahoma courts have in other cases given effect to the 

express requirement in Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 54 that, to be used 

for enhancement purposes, the foreign (e.g., federal, in this 

case) offense must be punishable by imprisonment in the Oklahoma 

penitentiary. ~, Clonce v. State, 588 P.2d 584, 591-92 (Okla. 

Crim. App. 1978); Fischer v. State, 483 P.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Okla. 

Crim. App. 1971). Although Mr. Webb has challenged the state 

court's use of his prior federal conviction to enhance his 

sentence, it is not apparent from the record before us whether he 

raised, or the state court considered, the fact that the state 

offense described by Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1541.1 (which the 

state court held equivalent to Mr. Webb's federal offense) is a 

misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment only in the county jail. 

Nevertheless, that is an issue for the state, not the federal, 

court. 

Having reviewed the record on appeal and carefully considered 

the briefs and arguments of Mr. Webb, we can find no error in the 

district court's decision nor any error rising to the level of a 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6369 Document: 01019971521 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 5 
violation of Mr. Webb's constitutional rights, for which this 

court could provide relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Accordingly, 

the decisions of the United States District Court are AFFIRMED for 

substantially the same reasons as set forth in the district 

court's Memorandum Opinion dated October 25, 1989. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-6369 Document: 01019971521 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 6