Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Frank Elwood Shipley filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for lewd and indecent acts with a child. The district court denied the petition. Shipley argued on appeal that the state court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief by not providing adequate conclusions of law. The appellate court determined that Shipley did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court confirmed that federal habeas review does not extend to purely state law procedural errors absent a constitutional due process violation. The appellate court denied Shipley's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views5 pages
    Frank Elwood Shipley filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for lewd and indecent acts with a child. The district court denied the petition. Shipley argued on appeal that the state court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief by not providing adequate conclusions of law. The appellate court determined that Shipley did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court confirmed that federal habeas review does not extend to purely state law procedural errors absent a constitutional due process violation. The appellate court denied Shipley's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-12-17 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 313 F.3d 1249 Docket: 02-6233

    Original Title

    Shipley v. State of Oklahoma, 313 F.3d 1249, 10th Cir. (2002)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Frank Elwood Shipley filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for lewd and indecent acts with a child. The district court denied the petition. Shipley argued on appeal that the state court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief by not providing adequate conclusions of law. The appellate court determined that Shipley did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court confirmed that federal habeas review does not extend to purely state law procedural errors absent a constitutional due process violation. The appellate court denied Shipley's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    33 views5 pages

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Frank Elwood Shipley filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for lewd and indecent acts with a child. The district court denied the petition. Shipley argued on appeal that the state court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief by not providing adequate conclusions of law. The appellate court determined that Shipley did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court confirmed that federal habeas review does not extend to purely state law procedural errors absent a constitutional due process violation. The appellate court denied Shipley's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    F I L E D

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    PUBLISH

    DEC 17 2002

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    PATRICK FISHER

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    Clerk

    FRANK ELWOOD SHIPLEY,


    Petititioner-Appellant,
    v.

    No. 02-6233

    STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
    WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
    (D.C. No. CIV-01-1722-T)
    Frank Elwood Shipley, pro se, Boley, Oklahoma.
    Respondent-Appellee did not file a brief in this appeal.
    Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    McKAY, Circuit Judge.

    After examining Petitioner-Appellants brief and the 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 is a pro se 28 U.S.C. 2254 prisoner appeal. Mr. Shipley pleaded
    nolo contendere to two counts of lewd and indecent acts to a child under sixteen
    years of age. Although sentencing was initially deferred for five years, the State
    subsequently sought to advance the deferred sentence, and Petitioner confessed
    that he had violated the terms of his probation. Mr. Shipley was then sentenced to
    twenty-year concurrent terms of imprisonment on each of the two counts, with ten
    years of each sentence suspended. Petitioner did not appeal; however, he did seek
    post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the application, and the denial was
    affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA).
    In his habeas petition, Petitioner alleged that (1) the trial court erred in
    failing to provide adequate conclusions of law in its order denying his application
    for post-conviction relief; (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the statute
    of limitations governing the offenses had expired; (3) the charging information
    was defective; (4) the trial court lacked the authority to defer his sentencing; (5)
    he was held in custody on unreasonable bond; and (6) he received ineffective
    assistance of trial counsel.
    In a well-reasoned and detailed opinion, the magistrate judge recommended
    that the petition be denied in its entirety. After consideration of Petitioners
    objections, the district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the
    -2-

    petition. Finding no merit in any of Mr. Shipleys arguments, the district court
    declined to grant him a certificate of appealability. Petitioner then applied to this
    court for a certificate of appealability.
    In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must
    make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C.
    2253(c)(2) (2002). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists
    could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have
    been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
    deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
    484 (2000) (quotations omitted).
    We have carefully reviewed Mr. Shipleys brief, the district courts
    disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal,
    or Petitioners brief raises an issue which meets our standards for the grant of a
    certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons as set forth by the
    district court in its Order of July 15, 2002, adopting the magistrate judges Report
    and Recommendation, we cannot say that reasonable jurists could debate whether
    (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a
    different manner. Id.
    One issue deserves further clarification. Petitioner submits that the state
    trial court erred in failing to provide adequate written conclusions of law in its
    -3-

    order denying Petitioners application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner raised


    this claim in his appeal to the OCCA from the trial courts order. Without
    specifically mentioning this claim of procedural error, the OCCA affirmed the
    trial courts denial of post-conviction relief.
    We take this opportunity to confirm that [f]ederal habeas review does not
    extend to the correction of purely state law procedural errors that do not rise to
    the level of a constitutional due process violation . . . . Davis v. Kaiser, No.
    00-6080, 2000 WL 895603, at *1 (10th Cir. July 6, 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S.
    944 (2001) (unpublished); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68
    (1991)(It is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state court
    determinations on state-law questions.); Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1166
    (10th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 122 S. Ct. 628 (2001). We agree that
    Petitioners claim of error by the state court does not amount to a federal
    constitutional claim that is cognizable in this federal habeas action. Magistrate
    Judges Report and Recommendation at 5; see also Cooper v. Nelson, No. 993180, 1999 WL 1243098 (10th Cir. Dec. 21, 1999) (unpublished) (affirming
    district courts conclusion that habeas petitioners claim of error in denial of
    evidentiary hearing in post-conviction proceeding is not appropriate for habeas
    corpus relief). In this and in all other respects, we agree with the disposition of
    the district court and the magistrate judge.
    -4-

    We DENY Petitioners request for a certificate of appealability and


    DISMISS the appeal. Petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
    is GRANTED.

    -5-

    You might also like