King v. Dean
| Decision Date | 21 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-7305,91-7305 |
| Citation | 955 F.2d 41 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Everett KING, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.E. DEAN; Edward W. Murray, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-385-R)
Everett King, Jr., appellant pro se.
Robert Quentin Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Va., for appellees.
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Everett King seeks to appeal the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. King v. Dean, No. CA-91-385-R (W.D.Va. Sept. 5, 1991). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
* We note that King's ineffective assistance claim fails the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). His remaining claims are procedurally barred not by his failure to present these issues in his first state habeas petition, but by his failure contemporaneously to object or to otherwise raise the issues before the trial court, see Va.Sup.Ct.Rules 5:25 5A:18; Slayton v. Parrigan, 205 S.E.2d 680 (Va.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975), and his failure to file a timely new trial motion, see Va.Sup.Ct.Rule 1:1.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. Director
...that Virginia Supreme Court Rule 5:25, which is identical to Rule 5A:18, is an adequate and independent ground for relief); King v. Dean, 955 F.2d 41 (4th Cir. 1992) (noting that a habeas petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to the petitioner's failure to object in the trial cou......
-
Lambert v. Clarke
...the trial court. See n. 3, supra. Rule 5A:18 has been held to be an independent and adequate state ground for denying relief. See King v. Dean, 955 F.2d 41 (4thCir. 1992) (unpublished) (affirming district court's finding of procedural default for petitioner's failure to contemporaneously ob......
-
Cumberbatch v. Clarke
...demonstrated neither cause, prejudice, nor a miscarriage of justice, the claim is procedurally defaulted. See, e.g., King v. Dean, 955 F.2d 41 (4th Cir. 1992) (table) (noting that a habeas petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to the petitioner's failure to object in the trial co......
-
Crawford v. Bailey
... ... claims that could have been, but were not, raised on direct ... appeal." Id. at 197. See King v. Dean ... 955 F.2d 41 [published in full-text format at 1992 U.S. App ... LEXIS 2345], n.* (4th Cir. 1992) (table) (recognizing ... ...