Green v. McGougan, 84-3132
| Decision Date | 29 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-3132,84-3132 |
| Citation | 744 F.2d 1189 |
| Parties | Geric GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John M. McGOUGAN, Warden, Hunt Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Geric Green, pro se.
Johnny S. McGary, Ponchatoula, La., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Geric Green appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Agreeing with the district court that no evidentiary hearing was required and that Green's contentions are without merit, we affirm.
Assisted by the first of three attorneys, Green pled guilty in Louisiana state court to a charge of armed robbery. Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement he was sentenced to confinement for ten years. Thereafter Green's second attorney filed a state habeas application alleging that Green had been denied the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not voluntary. This application was withdrawn before consideration because, according to Green, the second attorney advised him any further pursuit of habeas relief would result in a longer sentence. Green's third counsel before the state court then filed a second state habeas application alleging the previously stated grounds and adding a third claim, to-wit, his second counsel's performance in the habeas proceeding was constitutionally inadequate. After an evidentiary hearing the state court denied the application because those issues had been raised in the petition Green voluntarily withdrew. Green appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court which affirmed without opinion. Green v. Henderson, 433 So.2d 726 (La.1983).
With state remedies exhausted, Green filed the instant application pro se, asserting the same grounds as in the second state application. With a deft stroke of the judicial scythe, in an incisive opinion the district court cut to the heart of the habeas petition, concluded that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because the state record clearly reflected that Green's claims lacked arguable merit, and denied the writ.
Green contends that his guilty plea was not voluntary. Specifically he alleges that his attorney told him that the sentence would be less than ten years if he pleaded guilty. Green claims he was thus induced to plead guilty. The record of the arraignment belies this contention. The following colloquy between Green and the trial judge preceded the court's acceptance of the guilty plea:
Q. Have you been threatened or coerced in any way to enter this plea of guilty?
A. No, Your Honor.
Q. Are you aware of the plea agreement that has been entered into between the State and your counsel?
A. Yes sir, I'm aware.
Q. This plea agreement provides that there will be a pre-sentence investigation; that you will receive a sentence of ten years with the Department of Corrections, provided that the pre-sentence investigation reveals no other criminal activity; that if there has been other criminal activity on your part in the past, that you will not receive ten years, you will receive 15 years. Is that correct?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. And you're agreeable to that?
A. Yes sir.
* * *
* * *
Colonel Woods [defense counsel], from your conferences with the accused, do you feel that he understands your advice and what's going on?
MR. WOODS: I feel that he understands my advice and that he knows what's going on; he's had a chance to confer with his Minister and confer with his father, Your Honor.
* * *
* * *
Q. Mr. Green, do you have any questions you'd like to ask me?
A. No sir.
Q. Do you have anything you want to talk to Colonel Woods about or Mr. Rolling [prosecutor]?
A. No, Your Honor.
* * *
* * *
Q. Are you fully satisfied with the representation that has been provided you by your attorney, Colonel Woods?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
I'm satisfied that the plea is voluntary, is knowingly and intelligently made, therefore it will be accepted by the Court.
Green also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during both the trial and habeas proceedings. On federal habeas review we will not consider the adequacy of counsel in state habeas proceedings except insofar as counsel's performance might relate to an apparent abuse of the writ. As we observed in Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159, 167 (5th Cir.1983): "Counsel competence in habeas proceedings is not a constitutional inquiry, since a state has no constitutional duty to provide counsel in collateral proceedings." Green will not be heard to complain about state habeas counsel; we examine only the complaint against trial counsel.
Green's charge of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is found grossly wanting when measured against the standard announced by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, --- U.S. ----, 104...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkpatrick v. Blackburn
...of federal habeas relief because the state has no constitutional duty to provide counsel in collateral proceedings. Green v. McGougan, 744 F.2d 1189 at 1190 (5th Cir.1984); Jones v. Estelle, 722 F.2d 159, 167 (5th Cir.1983). Thus, although Kirkpatrick did not present this claim to the Louis......
-
Elliott v. Perez
...charges will not suffice. The particular professional failure must be pled and proven.Quoted with approval. Green v. McGougan, 744 F.2d 1189, at 1191 (5th Cir.1984).23 Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Sanctions.Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party repr......
-
Minor v. Henderson
...(5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Knighton v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 924, 105 S.Ct. 306, 83 L.Ed.2d 241 (1984). See also Green v. McGougan, 744 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1984) (ineffective assistance claim that counsel "filed no timely or appropriate motions relative to suppression" denied bec......
-
Tamez v. Director, Tdcj-Cid
...S.Ct. 2090, 104 L.Ed.2d 653 (1989). General statements and conclusory charges of ineffectiveness will not suffice. Green v. McGougan, 744 F.2d 1189, 1190 (5th Cir.1984). A. Failure to investigate claims of childhood sexual In his first claim for relief, Tamez says that his trial counsel mad......