*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

SEP 18 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JAMES LAWRENCE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

EDWARD L. EVANS,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-6396

(W. District of Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. CIV-96-963-M)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel

has unanimously determined 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.

Michael James Lawrence appeals the denial of his pro se petition for writ

of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court concludes, for
1Lawrence was also charged with first degree murder, but the jury acquitted

him on that count.

-2-

substantially the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation which was adopted by the district court, that Lawrence is not

entitled to a Certificate of Appealability and therefore DISMISSES the appeal. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that a petitioner may not appeal the denial

of a § 2254 petition unless he first obtains a Certificate of Appealability). 

Lawrence was convicted by a jury on one count of felonious possession of a

firearm and three counts of attempted subornation of perjury in connection with

the shooting and death of Lawrence’s ex-girlfriend.1

 In appealing the denial of

his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Lawrence realleges the following three

claims which he made to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the district

court: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of subornation

of perjury; 2) the trial court erred in refusing Lawrence’s proposed jury

instruction regarding duress as a defense to felonious possession of a firearm; and

3) the trial court erred in failing to give a jury instruction on the defense of

necessity.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Lawrence may not be granted habeas relief unless

the state court adjudication of his claim (1) resulted in a decision that was
-3-

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

law as determined by the United States Supreme Court; or (2) resulted in a

decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of

the evidence presented in the state proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 22543(d).

In the instant petition, Lawrence has merely realleged several of the statebased legal arguments he made on direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of

Criminal Appeals. Federal habeas corpus, however, “does not serve as an

additional appeal from State court conviction.” Sinclair v. Turner, 447 F.2d

1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 1971). Lawrence has failed to show that the state

adjudication involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

With respect to Lawrence’s claim that the evidence of his subornation of

perjury was insufficient to sustain a conviction, Lawrence claimed the three

witnesses who testified for the prosecution were not credible. As noted by the

district court, however, the evidence construed in the light most favorable to the

prosecution was that Lawrence “approached each of these three witnesses and

asked them to testify falsely under oath.” The district court correctly concluded

that from this evidence, that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of attempted subornation of perjury on all three counts. See Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979) (holding that on habeas claim based on
2Unpublished disposition cited as persuasive authority pursuant to 10th Cir.

R. 36.3.

-4-

insufficiency of evidence, petitioner must prove “no rational trier of fact could

have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”); Okla Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §

504 (West 1983) (spelling out substantive elements). 

Lawrence also argues that the state failed to prove an additional element

required for a charge of suborning perjury: that the witnesses agreed to testify

falsely. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, however, in deciding against

Lawrence, chose not to adopt that element as necessary to prove subornation of

perjury. Because the elements of a crime are a matter of state law, the district

court correctly rejected this argument as well. See Bond v. Oklahoma, 546 F.2d

1369, 1377 (10th Cir. 1976).

The district court furthermore appropriately rejected Lawrence’s arguments

that the trial court should have given his proposed instruction of duress as a

defense to the charge of felonious possession of a firearm, and should have sua

sponte given an instruction on the defense of necessity. Whether duress or

necessity are defenses to the crime of felonious possession of a firearm is a

question of state law. See Romero v. Henson, No. 90-F-550, 1991 WL 197004, at

**1 (10th Cir. Oct. 2, 1991).2

 Under Oklahoma law, to convict a person charged

with felonious possession of a firearm, the state need only prove “that the
-5-

defendant had a prior felony conviction and that he carried a pistol on his

person”; self-defense is not available in response to a charge of felonious

possession of a firearm. Griffin v. West, 791 F.2d 1578, 1580 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Thus, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on Lawrence’s selfdefense theories.

Because Lawrence fails to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), this court DENIES Lawrence a

certificate of appealability and DISMISSES his appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge