933 F.2d 1008 (6th Cir. 1991), 90-6277, Golzer v. Seabold

Docket Nº:90-6277.
Citation:933 F.2d 1008
Party Name:Philip GOLZER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William SEABOLD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Case Date:May 28, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 1008

933 F.2d 1008 (6th Cir. 1991)

Philip GOLZER, Petitioner-Appellant,


William SEABOLD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 90-6277.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

May 28, 1991

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

E.D.Ky., No. 90-00061; Forester, J.



Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and JOINER, Senior District Judge. [*]


This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Philip Golzer appeals the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 state habeas corpus petition. Following a jury trial, Golzer was convicted of receiving stolen property over $100. He received a one year sentence. The trial court suspended this sentence and entered a judgment of probation for three years. Golzer did not file a direct appeal of this conviction or sentence.

On September 29, 1982, and while on probation, the petitioner pled guilty in Fayette Circuit Court to a charge of receiving stolen property and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. On this basis, a probation violation warrant was issued for his arrest, and, on November 5, 1982, his probation was revoked and the one year sentence reinstated to run consecutively to the five year sentence. His subsequent Ky.R.Crim.P. 11.42 motion was overruled, and he filed the instant habeas corpus petition. In this petition, Golzer claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during his trial and with respect to his right to a direct appeal and during the proceedings relating to his post-conviction collateral attack of his 1981 conviction.

After reviewing the magistrate's report and...

To continue reading