Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    William H. Warren, Jr. v. Jack Cowley, Warden, 930 F.2d 36, 10th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Warren appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his Oklahoma state court convictions for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and felony murder. Warren raised thirteen grounds for appeal, including insufficient evidence, erroneous jury instructions, failure to sever his trial from his co-defendant, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and Brady violations for suppressed evidence. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Warren's petition, finding no reversible error after fully considering each of the issues raised.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    William H. Warren, Jr. v. Jack Cowley, Warden, 930 F.2d 36, 10th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    52 views4 pages
    William Warren appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his Oklahoma state court convictions for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and felony murder. Warren raised thirteen grounds for appeal, including insufficient evidence, erroneous jury instructions, failure to sever his trial from his co-defendant, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and Brady violations for suppressed evidence. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Warren's petition, finding no reversible error after fully considering each of the issues raised.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1991-02-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 930 F.2d 36 Docket: 89-7103

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    William Warren appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his Oklahoma state court convictions for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and felony murder. Warren raised thirteen grounds for appeal, including insufficient evidence, erroneous jury instructions, failure to sever his trial from his co-defendant, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and Brady violations for suppressed evidence. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Warren's petition, finding no reversible error after fully considering each of the issues raised.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    52 views4 pages

    William H. Warren, Jr. v. Jack Cowley, Warden, 930 F.2d 36, 10th Cir. (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Warren appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his Oklahoma state court convictions for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and felony murder. Warren raised thirteen grounds for appeal, including insufficient evidence, erroneous jury instructions, failure to sever his trial from his co-defendant, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and Brady violations for suppressed evidence. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Warren's petition, finding no reversible error after fully considering each of the issues raised.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    930 F.

    2d 36

    Unpublished Disposition
    NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished
    opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value
    and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the
    doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral
    estoppel.
    William H. WARREN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    Jack COWLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 89-7103.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    Feb. 25, 1991.

    Before LOGAN, JOHN P. MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.


    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

    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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.

    William H. Warren, Jr. (petitioner), a state prisoner, appeals from a district


    court order adopting a recommendation of a magistrate to deny his petition for
    a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Pending before this
    court are petitioner's motions for a certificate of probable cause and leave to
    proceed in forma pauperis. Because we find the issues raised by petitioner to be
    nonfrivolous, we grant both motions.

    In his petition, which was filed with an accompanying memorandum brief,


    petitioner challenged his convictions and sentences by an Oklahoma court for

    conspiracy to commit armed robbery and felony murder on the following


    grounds:
    4

    (1) State offered no evidence, independent of accomplice Grayson's testimony


    which connected petitioner to the crimes charged themselves. The evidence
    was insufficient as a matter of law.

    (2) The trial court failed to instruct that there must be corroborative evidence
    connecting each defendant separately to the ffense (sic) charged and when the
    prosecution, compounding the lack of information with misinformation, argued
    that any indication that accomplice Grayson knew what he was talking about
    constituted corroborating evidence.

    (3) The trial judge, over defense objections, permitted codefendant testimony
    on the existence of an agreement without there first being independent evidence
    showing the exiatence (sic) of an agreement. The fact that Grayson's agreement
    testimony was inadmissible in turn caused there to be insuffucuent (sic)
    evidence. The prosecution never presented independent evidence of the
    existence of an agreement.

    (4) Contravention of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United
    States Constitution and in contravention of Oklahoma law--in permitting the
    prosecution to introduce statements of petitioner which were the product of an
    illegal arrest. Such error particularly was prejudicial because the prosecution
    used the statements to purport that htere (sic) was corroboration of accomplice
    Grayson's testimony.

    (5) The trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct on second
    degree murder and on manslaughter in the first degree, in violation of the due
    process clauses of the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.

    (6) The trial judge refused ro (sic) allow the defense to question juror Daniels
    on her mis trial (sic) statements concerning threats which allegedly had been
    made to the state's key witness, accomplice Grayson.

    10

    (7) The trail (sic) court erred in failing to give petitioner's requested instruction
    that Grayson's prior felony conviction could be used by the jury in assessing his
    lack of credibility.

    11

    (8) The trial court committed fundamental error by failing to give a cautionary

    instruction on Roy Grayson's testimony.


    12

    (9) The trial court committed reversible error in denying petitioner's motion for
    serverance (sic) because such denial caused petitioner to have a death-qualified
    jury even though the state was not seeking to execute the petitioner, because
    petitioner was prejudiced by evid# nce (sic) which was incriminating as to co
    defendant (sic) Johns and not admissible as to petitioner, and because the lack
    of severance tented (sic) to confuse the issue of whether there was adequate
    corroboration as to petitioner.

    13

    (10) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the


    authority of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct.
    2052 (1984), when counsel failed to secure any witness in favor of the alibi
    defense. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 6th and 14th.

    14

    (11) Petitioner was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel under the
    authority of Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 83 L.Ed.2d 821, 105 S.Ct. 830
    (1985), when counsel failed to present meritorious issues on direct appeal.

    15

    Appellate counsel failed to present on direct appeal the issue of the states (sic)
    star witness testified to a different murder at the preliminary hearing in order to
    get petitioner bound over for trial.

    16

    (12) Petitioner was denied due process of law under the authority of Brady v.
    Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1184 (1963), when the state
    suppressed the statement of the state's star witness.

    17

    (13) Petitioner was denied due process of law under the authority of Brady v.
    Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), when the state
    suppressed psychological records of the state's star witness.

    18

    The magistrate's report dealt fully and fairly with each of the issues raised by
    appellant. Upon our review of the proceedings, we find no reversible error.

    19

    Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

    This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
    used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing

    the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
    Cir.R. 36.3

    You might also like