Ronald Lynn Jones, Petitioner-appellant, v. Frank Gunter, Executive Director, Department of Corrections;gale A. Norton, Attorney General of the State Ofcolorado, Respondents-appellees, 953 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 953 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1992) Jan. 31, 1992

Before JOHN P. MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JOHN P. MOORE, 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.

Petitioner appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On appeal, Petitioner continues to argue, as he did in the district court, that (1) the procedure used by the trial court during his sentencing hearing violated his constitutional rights; (2) the trial court improperly sentenced him to a term of incarceration outside the presumptive range for the underlying offense; (3) Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-18-107 is unconstitutional on its face; and (4) the Colorado Court of Appeals denied him due process and equal protection by affirming his conviction.

After considering Petitioner's briefs on appeal and the district court file, including state court transcripts, we conclude, for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its Order filed October 11, 1990, that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Probable Cause is DENIED. Petitioner's Motion for Amended Request for Relief is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

 *

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.