Anderson v. Reynolds ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 7 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-7027
(D.C. No. 92-CV-721-S)
DAN REYNOLDS; ATTORNEY (E.D. Okla.)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Petitioner-appellant Robert Anderson appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. This matter comes before us on appellant’s application for a certificate
of appealability (COA), which we construe as an application for a certificate of
probable cause (CPC) since his petition was filed prior to the effective date of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See United States v.
Kunzman , 125 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.2 (10th Cir. 1997).
Having carefully reviewed the record and the applicable law, we conclude
that the district court correctly determined that appellant has failed to exhaust the
claims in his amended petition. See Dever v. Kansas State Penitentiary , 36 F.3d
1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1994). We also agree that the Oklahoma courts would
procedurally bar those of appellant’s claims which could have been raised on
direct appeal. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1086 (West 2000); Berget v. State ,
907 P.2d 1078, 1080-81 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
We cannot say, however, that appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel is procedurally barred. First, this claim cannot be barred on the
basis of appellant’s failure to file a direct appeal from his no contest plea. See
Hickman v. Spears , 160 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding that time
frame for Oklahoma post-plea appeal is insufficient to allow appellant to develop
ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal). Second, although
-2-
appellant subsequently failed to take timely appeal from the denial of his
application for post-conviction relief, the Oklahoma courts may still permit him to
remedy that omission. Appellant argues that he was misled about whether the
Oklahoma Appellate Public Defender was handling his appeal. Given these
circumstances, it is possible that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
would now grant appellant an appeal out of time from the denial of his
application for post-conviction relief as to his ineffective assistance claim.
See Okla. Crim. App. R. 2.1(E), 5.2(A). Since appellant has an available
procedure for presenting this claim to the Oklahoma courts, he has not
exhausted this claim and his petition should be dismissed to allow him to do so.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); Rose v. Lundy , 455 U.S. 509 (1982).
We therefore GRANT appellant’s application for a CPC, in order to
VACATE the district court’s judgment, and REMAND this case with instructions
to dismiss the petition to allow appellant to seek an appeal out of time or other
appropriate relief from the Oklahoma courts.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-