Opinion ID: 617722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sequence of Mr. Ballard’s Sentences

Text: Mr. Ballard argues that he should currently be serving his life sentence for the murder conviction and that the 75-year sentence for the robbery convictions should follow. Instead, he is currently serving the 75-year sentence for robbery, and the life sentence for the murder conviction will follow. We agree with the district court and the magistrate judge that this issue is a matter -4- of state law and that any misapplication of the sequence of Mr. Ballard’s sentences does not involve the denial of a constitutional right. See Harris v. Dep’t of Corr., 426 F. Supp. 350, 352 (W.D. Okla. 1977) (“Matters relating to sentencing, service of sentence and allowance of any credits are governed by state law and do not raise federal constitutional questions.”); see also Handley v. Page, 398 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1968) (holding that an issue as to whether the petitioner was serving concurrent or consecutive sentences was an issue of state law that did not raise a federal issue cognizable for federal habeas corpus relief).2 Even if his claim were cognizable on federal habeas corpus review, we agree with the district court and the magistrate judge that the state court did not specify that the life sentence for the murder conviction should have been imposed before the 75-year sentence for the robbery conviction. We also agree that the Oklahoma Department of Corrections imposed Mr. Ballard’s sentences pursuant to Oklahoma policy on sentencing administration.