Opinion ID: 215844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Selsor's first federal habeas proceedings

Text: In October of 1991, Selsor filed a pro se petition for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Selsor v. Kaiser (Kaiser I), 22 F.3d 1029, 1031 (10th Cir.1994). Selsor's petition asserted two grounds for relief: (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel because of his attorney's conflict of interesti.e., the same attorney represented both [Selsor] and Dodson; and (2) the separate convictions and sentences for felony murder and the underlying felonyi.e., armed robbery, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. The district court denied Selsor's petition on December 4, 1992. Id. In doing so, the district court addressed and rejected the ineffective assistance claim on the merits, but concluded that Selsor's double jeopardy claim was procedurally barred. Selsor appealed the district court's ruling to this court. This court appointed a federal public defender to represent Selsor. On May 2, 1994, this court issued a published opinion reversing the decision of the district court and remanding for further proceedings. More specifically, this court concluded that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard to Selsor's Sixth Amendment claim, id. at 1033, and thus remanded the case to the district court to determine whether: (1) [Selsor]'s objection at trial to the joint representation was timely, and, if so, (2) whether the trial court took `adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk [of a conflict of interest] was too remote to warrant separate counsel,' id. at 1033-34 (quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 484, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978)). On remand the district [court] concluded that Selsor's objection to the joint representation was timely. Kaiser II, 81 F.3d at 1496. However, [the district court] held that the state trial court made an adequate inquiry into the possibility of a conflict of interest. . . . Id. Thus, the district court denied Selsor's petition. Id. Selsor appealed again to this court. On April 8, 1996, this court issued a published opinion ( Kaiser II ) reversing the district court's ruling. In doing so, this court held there was an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance on behalf of Selsor, resulting in violations of Selsor's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 1506. Accordingly, this court remanded the case to the district court with directions to enter judgment invalidating Selsor's convictions . . ., but providing that such judgment [wa]s without prejudice to further proceedings by the state for retrial of [Selsor] within a reasonable time. Id.