Williams v. Klinger
This text of Williams v. Klinger (Williams v. Klinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 1998 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
GREGORY D. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 98-6206 (D.C. No. 98-CV-63-M) KEN KLINGER; STATE OF (Western District of Oklahoma) OKLAHOMA,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , McKAY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Gregory Williams filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the legality of two sentences imposed by an Oklahoma
state court. The federal district court, adopting the magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation, denied the petition. We take jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(a), and affirm.
* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Petitioner pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of obtaining merchandise
and/or money by a false and bogus check in violation of Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 21,
§ 1541.2 (Supp. 1998) (amended 1997) (effective until July 1, 1998). Although
this felony carried a maximum sentence of one year in the county jail at the time
petitioner was convicted, see id. , he had previously been convicted of two
felonies and the state court enhanced his sentence pursuant to Okla. Stat. Ann.,
tit. 21, § 51 (Supp. 1998) (repealed 1997) (effective until July 1, 1998). Section
51 provided, at the time of petitioner’s conviction, that “[e]very person who,
having been twice convicted of felony offenses, commits a third, or thereafter,
felony offenses . . . shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary
for a term of not less than twenty (20) years.” Id. § 51(B). Williams was
eventually sentenced to two concurrent terms of 40 years for his crimes.
Before us, petitioner contends that the state court was without jurisdiction
to enhance his convictions. 1 In support of this position, he points to language in §
51, which provides that a second conviction may be enhanced so long as the first
offense and the offense of conviction are “punishable by imprisonment in the
State Penitentiary.” Id. § 51(A). Because the offenses he pleaded guilty to were,
at the time, punishable only by imprisonment in the county jail, petitioner argues
1 We note that petitioner challenges only whether § 51 was applicable, not whether the sentences imposed were excessive.
-2- that the application of § 51 to enhance his sentences was improper. We must
disagree.
As both the federal district court and the magistrate judge correctly noted, §
51(B) and not § 51(A) is applicable to petitioner. Williams does not deny that he
had at least two felony convictions prior to pleading guilty to violations of §
1541.2. In addition, the language of § 1541.2 clearly states that “any person
convicted pursuant to this section shall be guilty of a felony.” Okla. Stat. Ann.,
tit. 21, § 1541.2 (Supp. 1998) (amended 1997) (effective until July 1, 1988).
Because § 51(B) requires only that the offense of conviction be a felony, it was
appropriately applied. See Walker v. State , 953 P.2d 354, 356 (Okla. Crim. App.
1998) (noting that, although enhancement of punishment with one prior
conviction requires that offense be punishable by imprisonment in penitentiary, no
such requirement exists when defendant has two prior qualifying convictions).
We GRANT petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability, see
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), as well as his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
AFFIRM the district court’s order denying the habeas petition.
-3- The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
-4-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Williams v. Klinger, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-klinger-ca10-1998.