Weldon v. Wyo. Dept. of Corr. State Pen. Warden

Decision Date24 April 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-CV-176-J.,96-CV-176-J.
PartiesSteve Allen WELDON, Petitioner, v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE PENITENTIARY WARDEN, in his official capacity, a.k.a. James Ferguson, and the Wyoming Attorney General, Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Wyoming

Steve Allen Weldon, Stillwater, MN, pro se.

Hugh L. Kenny, Wyoming Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, WY, for respondents.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ALAN B. JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

The above-entitled matter came before the Court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court has carefully reviewed the petition, and all the material in the file, and being fully advised, finds that the petition should be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, Steve Allen Weldon, pled guilty on February 26, 1990 to first degree murder, conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and aggravated assault and battery. On March 30, 1990, the trial court entered the written judgment and sentence. The court imposed a life sentence with two term sentences to follow. The term sentences were to be served concurrently to each other, but consecutive to the life sentence. Weldon v. State, 800 P.2d 513, 514 (Wyo.1990). On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court modified the sentence by applying Mr. Weldon's presentence credit to his consecutive term sentences, rather than to his life sentence. Id.

After his direct appeal, Mr. Weldon challenged his judgment and sentence on two subsequent occasions. On December 14, 1995, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state Seventh Judicial District Court. The petition was transferred to the Second Judicial District Court. The Second Judicial District Court dismissed the petition because it failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. On March 25, 1996, Mr. Weldon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Wyoming Supreme Court. The supreme court denied the petition "for the reason that Weldon has failed to demonstrate that his restraint is illegal in the sense that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentences. WYO. STAT. §§ 1-27-101(a)(iii) and 1-27-125 (1988)." Weldon v. Ferguson, No. 96-79 (Wyo. Apr. 23, 1996).

ANALYSIS

A federal court will ordinarily dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 if the petitioner has not "fairly presented" the claims raised in the petition to the highest state court empowered to consider them and given that court an adequate opportunity to rule on the merits. Hamill v. Ferguson, 937 F.Supp. 1517, 1521 (D.Wyo.1996). Additionally, if the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies, and would now find the claims procedurally barred in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, there is procedural default for purposes of federal habeas corpus relief. Procedural default of federal claims in the state court bars federal habeas review of the claims unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or can demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n. 1, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2557 n. 1, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

In his petition to this Court, Mr. Weldon raises the following claims:

1. He was denied effective assistance of trial counsel;

2. He was denied due process competency and commitment hearings;

3. He was denied a grand jury indictment for a capital offense crime;

4. He was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel;

5. The language of the state statute relating to mental illness is unconstitutional;

6. His plea bargain was not a knowing, intelligent or voluntary waiver of constitutional rights;

7. He was subject to malicious and vindictive prosecutorial over-reaching;

8. His convictions resulted from mental illness;

9. The Wyoming Supreme Court violated his due process and equal protection rights by denying his habeas corpus petition on its own motion.

Mr. Weldon did not present any of these issues to the Wyoming Supreme Court in his direct appeal, nor did he present them to the state courts through a petition for postconviction relief. The only issue in the direct appeal was the propriety, under Wyoming law, of "presentence confinement time of 358 days applied to a life sentence to be followed by concurrent term sentences...." Weldon v. State, 800 P.2d at 513.

Mr. Weldon contends that even though he failed to raise his claims in his direct appeal or in a petition for post-conviction relief, he did afford the state courts a full and fair opportunity to address the alleged constitutional violations. He submits that the state courts were given the opportunity because his habeas corpus petitions properly challenged the jurisdiction of the state court. He also argues that there is no state remedy for his last issue, and that exculpatory circumstances should excuse him from any procedural bar.

This Court finds that Mr. Weldon did not "fairly present" his first eight claims to the Wyoming Supreme Court and that those claims are now barred under Wyoming law. Mr. Weldon is therefore also procedurally barred from raising the claims in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The Court further finds that Mr. Weldon's last claim should be denied as frivolous, irrespective of the availability of a state remedy. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (application for habeas corpus may be denied on the merits notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the state).

Although Mr. Weldon did raise the first eight of the above issues in his petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the state district court and the Wyoming Supreme Court, under Wyoming law, the only issue cognizable in a state habeas corpus proceeding is jurisdiction. As stated in Stambaugh v. Shillinger, 98 F.3d 1350, 1996 WL 563857, at *2 (10th Cir.1996):

Wyoming statutes and court decisions have significantly narrowed the grounds on which such a petition may be granted. See State ex rel. Hopkinson v. District Court, Teton County, 696 P.2d 54, 60 (Wyo.) (citing Hollibaugh & Bunten v. Hehn, 13 Wyo. 269, 79 P. 1044 (1905)), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. 187, 88 L.Ed.2d 155 (1985); see also Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-27-125. In particular, "[a] court's judgment cannot be impeached by a writ of habeas corpus except for jurisdictional reasons." Hopkinson, 696 P.2d at 60.

In its order denying Mr. Weldon's habeas corpus petition, the Wyoming Supreme Court stated that Mr. Weldon had failed to demonstrate that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentences. Mr. Weldon argues to this Court that the Wyoming Supreme Court's ruling was incorrect, and that alleged violations of his fundamental rights constituted an "excess of jurisdiction." The Court finds that this argument is unpersuasive.

The Wyoming Supreme Court has clearly limited the reach of the writ of habeas corpus to contesting the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and authority to render the particular judgment. Ex parte Madson, 25 Wyo. 338, 169 P. 336, 337 (Wyo. 1917). In Hovey v. Sheffner, 16 Wyo. 254, 93 P. 305, 308 (Wyo.1908), the supreme court emphasized that the state writ of habeas corpus is not designed "to interrupt the orderly administration of the criminal laws by a competent court while acting within its jurisdiction. The occurrence of mere errors or irregularities in a criminal case not affecting the jurisdiction of the trial court will not authorize a discharge of the accused upon habeas corpus." Both the trial court and the supreme court found that Mr. Weldon's claims were not cognizable because Mr. Weldon failed to demonstrate that the district court lacked jurisdiction. In Rael v. Sullivan, 918 F.2d 874, 876 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 928, 111 S.Ct. 1328, 113 L.Ed.2d 260 (1991), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that state courts are the ultimate expositors of state law and that the federal courts are bound by their construction absent extreme circumstances. There are no extreme circumstances present in this matter and this Court will abide by the Wyoming Supreme Court's finding that Mr. Weldon did not properly present the claims in his state habeas petition.

The proper remedy to challenge Mr. Weldon's alleged violations would have been a petition for post-conviction relief. However, the petition must be filed within five years after the entry of his judgment of conviction in 1990. As the Tenth Circuit also observed in Stambaugh, 98 F.3d 1350, 1996 WL 563857, at *2:

Under Wyoming law, a person serving a felony sentence in a state penal institution may file a petition for postconviction relief on the grounds that "in the proceedings which resulted in his conviction there was a substantial denial of his rights under the constitution of the United States or of the state of Wyoming." See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-14-101 (1995). However, such a petition is not allowed if filed more than five years after the entry of judgment of conviction. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-14-103(d).

Mr. Weldon is now procedurally barred from requesting post-conviction relief, as more than five years have lapsed since his 1990 conviction. He is therefore precluded from bringing his claims before the federal court unless he can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or can demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct. at 2565. As recently stated in Starr v. Wyoming Dept. of Corrections State Penitentiary, 107 F.3d 21, 1997 WL 57169, at * 2 (10th Cir.1997):

Because of his procedural default, we may not consider petitioner's claims unless he is able to show "cause for the default and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Pellegrini v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • November 15, 2001
    ...miscarriage of justice test), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1006, 120 S.Ct. 1274, 146 L.Ed.2d 223 (2000), with Weldon v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, 963 F.Supp. 1098, 1103 (D.Wyo.1997) (stating "it is very questionable whether legal innocence because of insanity could constitute actual inno......
  • Weldon v. Pacheco
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 6, 2017
    ...numerous claims, most of which were dismissed as procedurally barred and one as legally frivolous. Weldon v. Wyo. Dep't of Corr. State Pen. Warden, 963 F. Supp. 1098,1100, 1104 (D. Wyo. 1997), aff'd, No. 97-8041, 1997 WL 639326 (10th Cir. Oct. 10, 1997) (unpublished). Recently he filed two ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT