Coleman v. Brown, 85-1094

• Decision Date: 19 January 1985
• Docket Number: No. 85-1094,85-1094
• Citation: 753 F.2d 832
• Parties: Charles Troy COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John N. BROWN, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, Respondent-Appellee, and Larry Meachum, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, and Michael C. Turpen, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Additional Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 832

753 F.2d 832

Charles Troy COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John N. BROWN, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, Respondent-Appellee and Larry Meachum, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, and Michael C. Turpen, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Additional Respondents-Appellees.

No. 85-1094.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 19, 1985.

Edward Munson, Tahlequah, Okl., for petitioner-appellant.

Michael C. Turpen, Atty. Gen., David W. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondents-appellees.

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.

HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge.

The court has for consideration the appellant Charles Troy Coleman's application for a stay of execution of appellant's death warrant, and exhibits submitted in support thereof. Argument by counsel was made before the undersigned judge, who has conferred on the application with Judge Logan and Judge Seymour. The court concludes as follows.

The court is advised that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma has considered and denied appellant's petition for habeas corpus relief on January 18, 1985. The district court denied a stay of execution also and issued a certificate of probable cause under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253. A notice of appeal was filed on January 18, 1985.

The certificate of probable cause for an appeal having been granted, the appellant must "be afforded an opportunity to address the merits, and the court of appeals is obligated to decide the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, a circuit court, where necessary to prevent the case from becoming moot by the petitioner's execution, should grant a stay of execution pending disposition of an appeal when a condemned prisoner obtains a certificate of probable cause on his initial habeas appeal." Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). This is appellant's first habeas appeal in the federal courts in this matter, we are advised, and this ruling of the district court was the first ruling on the merits of appellant's constitutional claims by a federal court. The Supreme Court has emphasized the duty of the courts of appeal to afford the parties an opportunity to address the underlying merits and the obligation of the courts to give "due consideration of the merits." Barefoot, 103 S.Ct. at 3392; see also Chaney v. Brown, 712 F.2d 441, 443 (10th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Sonnier v. Maggio, 714 F.2d 20, 21 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1331, 79 L.Ed.2d 726 (1984). The district court rendered an opinion of 23 pages addressing over 30 claims made by the appellant.

In view of the issuance of the certificate of probable cause for an appeal; the substantial lengthy opinion of the District Court discussing numerous issues raised in the federal habeas suit; this court's obligation to give the parties the opportunity fully to address the underlying merits; this court's duty to give due consideration to the merits of the appeal; the obvious restrictions of time in light of the execution which is scheduled on January 22, 1985; and the...