United States v. Wilson ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 14 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 97-4196
v.
(D.C. No. 97-CV-234-G)
(District of Utah)
DAVID LAWRENCE WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, MCKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
David Lawrence Wilson filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah alleging (1) that his present sentence has been improperly calculated by the
Bureau of Prisons and (2) that this sentence was improperly enhanced by two
earlier, unconstitutional convictions. The district court, adopting the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation, dismissed the petition for lack of
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
jurisdiction. Because the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right, we grant a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2).
Petitioner pleaded guilty to a single count of attempted bank robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and was sentenced to a 151-month term of
imprisonment. See United States v. Wilson , 10 F.3d 734, 735 (10th Cir. 1993).
Petitioner’s first claim is that the Bureau of Prisons has failed to credit him for
585 days spent in federal custody prior to this conviction. Because this is an
attack on the execution of the sentence rather than its validity, § 2255 relief is
unavailable. See United States v. Scott , 803 F.2d 1095, 1096 (10th Cir. 1986);
see also Bradshaw v. Story , 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Petitioner’s claim
would be properly addressed in a § 2241 habeas petition filed in the district where
he is confined. Scott , 803 F.2d at 1096. This claim was therefore correctly
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner also claims that his present sentence was improperly enhanced by
prior, unconstitutional convictions in Florida and California. The district court
dismissed this challenge for lack of jurisdiction, interpreting the petition as an
improper collateral attack on the Florida and California convictions. As
petitioner correctly notes, however, although a defendant may not challenge a
fully-expired conviction in isolation, if the attack is directed at the sentence under
-2-
which the defendant is in custody, “the defendant may argue that his present
sentence is improper because it has been enhanced by a prior, unconstitutional
conviction.” Gamble v. Parsons , 898 F.2d 117, 118 (10th Cir. 1990); see also
Collins v. Hesse , 957 F.2d 746 (10th Cir. 1992). Construed with the deference to
which pro se litigants are entitled, appellant’s habeas petition should be read “as
asserting a challenge to his present sentence to the extent that it has been
enhanced by the allegedly invalid prior conviction[s].” Gamble , 898 F.2d at 118.
The district court improperly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as to
this claim.
We REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s petition for
habeas corpus and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this order
and judgment.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-