Leatherwood v. Allbaugh
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11399
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Leatherwood pled guilty to multiple first-degree rape charges; the judge imposed six concurrent 20-year terms but suspended all but 90 days and imposed probation with Special Probation Conditions for sex offenders, including Rule 17 (no romantic/sexual relationship with a person who has children under 18 in their custody).
- Before serving the 90 days, the State filed to revoke his suspended sentence; at a January 8, 2010 hearing Leatherwood stipulated to violations (including Rule 17) and Judge Watson revoked five years of the suspended term.
- While serving the five-year term, the State filed a second revocation application alleging continued violations of Rule 17 (including while incarcerated); Judge Bass-LeSure conducted a second hearing and revoked the remaining 15 years of the suspension.
- Leatherwood appealed in Oklahoma courts (direct appeal and post-conviction); the OCCA affirmed. He then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging procedural and substantive due process (fair‑warning/vagueness and arbitrariness) and other claims; the district court denied relief but granted a COA only on the due process claim.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of the § 2241 petition, rejected Leatherwood’s fair‑warning and substantive due process theories, denied additional COAs (judicial bias/conflict and cumulative error), and denied a motion to supplement the record with Judge Watson’s affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair‑warning (procedural due process) | Rule 17 did not give notice that it could be enforced while Leatherwood was incarcerated; revocation was unforeseeable | Judge Watson’s statements at the first revocation hearing, Oklahoma case law, and the suspended‑sentence framework gave fair warning that Rule 17 could be enforced in custody | Fair warning existed; no procedural due process violation (claim denied) |
| Substantive due process (arbitrariness) | Revoking suspension for conduct in prison equated incarceration to probation and was arbitrary/shocking | Revocation was a plausible application of Oklahoma law and not so egregious as to shock the conscience | Revocation was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair; substantive due process claim fails |
| Jurisdictional vehicle (§2241 v. §2254) | (raised at lower courts) Leatherwood proceeded under §2241 challenging execution of sentence | State argued revocation challenge was an execution issue; concurrence questioned the §2241 choice and suggested §2254 would be proper | Majority applied circuit precedent treating revocation-of-suspended-sentence challenges as §2241; concurrence would prefer §2254 for deference but did not change outcome |
| COA requests (bias/conflict and cumulative error) | Judge Bass‑LeSure’s statement and alleged D.A. investigation showed bias/conflict; cumulative errors deprived him of fair trial | Statements and timing do not show judicial bias or conflict; insufficient errors to support cumulative claim | COAs denied: jurists could not reasonably debate the district court on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (void‑for‑vagueness/fair‑warning principle)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (due process protections apply to revocation of conditional liberty)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (substantive due process limits on automatic revocation where unfair)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial rulings generally do not establish bias)
- United States v. Gallo, 20 F.3d 7 (First Circuit fair‑warning analysis for probation conditions)
- United States v. Muñoz, 812 F.3d 809 (applying vagueness/fair‑warning to supervised‑release conditions)
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (Tenth Circuit treating revocation challenges as §2241)
- Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227 (§2241 review is de novo in this circuit)