Branan v. Booth

Decision Date20 December 1988
Docket NumberNo. 88-3052,88-3052
Citation861 F.2d 1507
PartiesMichael R. BRANAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William E. BOOTH, and Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HILL, FAY and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner-appellant, Michael R. Branan, a Florida prisoner, seeks review of the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254). Branan was convicted of sexual battery with slight force and sentenced to 15 years in prison by a Palm Beach County Circuit Court in 1984. After exhausting state remedies, Branan filed the instant petition for habeas relief. In his petition, Branan alleges that he was denied due process and equal protection because the trial judge relied on invalid reasons in departing from the Florida sentencing guidelines (Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701) and increasing Branan's sentence from the recommended 12-30 months to 15 years. The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice, finding the issue to be one of state law and, thus, not cognizable in a federal habeas action. We affirm.

The applicable statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(a), provides:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

It is clear from the foregoing statute that a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief. Carrizales v. Wainwright, 699 F.2d 1053, 1054-55 (11th Cir.1983). In the area of state sentencing guidelines in particular, we consistently have held that federal courts can not review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures. Jones v. Estelle, 622 F.2d 124, 126 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 996, 101 S.Ct. 537, 66 L.Ed.2d 295 (1980); Nichols v. Estelle, 556 F.2d 1330, 1331 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1020, 98 S.Ct. 744, 54 L.Ed.2d 767 (1978); Willeford v. Estelle, 538 F.2d 1194, 1196-98 (5th Cir.1976). This limitation on federal habeas review is of equal force when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is "couched in terms of equal protection and due process." Willeford, 538 F.2d at 1198.

In the instant case, petitioner argues that the trial judge misinterpreted Florida law regarding departure from recommended guidelines for sentencing. He cites numerous Florida cases and argues that, if the trial judge had correctly interpreted Florida case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
412 cases
  • Mashburn v. Sec'y
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • November 17, 2014
    ...when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is couched in terms of equal protection and due process." Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988). A state court's jurisdiction, based upon the charging document's alleged failure to comply with state constitutional pr......
  • Pittman v. Sec'y
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • February 20, 2015
    ...A violation of a state rule of procedure, or of state law itself, is not a violation of the federal constitution. Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1989).B. Deference to State Court Decisions On habeas review, the state court's application of the facts to the law may not beove......
  • Esty v. Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • June 4, 2015
    ...when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is couched in terms of equal protection and due process." Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988). Second, petitioner's Grounds One and Two challenge the process afforded him in state postconviction proceedings. Challe......
  • Clavelle v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-781-J-39PDB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • May 1, 2018
    ..."was not enacted to enforce State-created rights." Cabberiza v. Moore, 217 F.3d 1329, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988)), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 1170 (2001). The Eleventh Circuit allows that only in cases of federal constitutional error will......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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