Ladd v. Jones, 88-7312
| Decision Date | 23 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-7312,88-7312 |
| Citation | 864 F.2d 108 |
| Parties | Robert Eric LADD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charlie JONES, Warden, and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Respondents-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Robert Eric Ladd, Springfield, Ala., pro se.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., Martha Gail Ingram, Montgomery, Ala. for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before HILL and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
Appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging (1) his conviction was based on evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (3) the prosecutor systematically used his peremptory strikes to remove blacks from the jury, (4) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt, (5) his sentencing as a habitual offender violated due process and equal protection, and (6) his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. Appellant contended that the issues relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, the composition of the jury, and the jury instruction had not been presented to the state courts due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment.
The magistrate issued a report recommending that the appellees' motion for summary judgment be granted and that the petition be dismissed. The magistrate determined that the appellant could not relitigate his fourth amendment claim concerning the lawfulness of his arrest, and the use of evidence obtained pursuant thereto, because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim in state court. The magistrate further found that appellant had procedurally defaulted on his claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the composition of the jury, the trial court's jury instruction, and his sentencing as a habitual offender. The magistrate found that appellant's trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective, and thus, appellant did not establish cause for and prejudice from the procedural default. From these findings, the magistrate concluded that the appellant could not litigate his claims in a federal habeas proceeding. Therefore, the magistrate recommended that the appellant's petition be dismissed. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the petition.
On appeal, appellant raised three of the issues found by the district court to be procedurally barred: the sufficiency of the evidence, his enhanced sentencing, and the exclusion of blacks from the jury. Under Alabama law, a failure to raise an issue either at trial or on direct appeal from the conviction constitutes a procedural bar to the assertion of the claim in a subsequent collateral proceeding. See e.g., Ex Parte Ellison, 410 So.2d 130 (Ala.1982). This court has made it clear that, in such circumstances, a petitioner's claims are procedurally barred even if the state courts have not yet refused to hear them on procedural grounds. Lindsey v. Smith, 820 F.2d 1137 (11th Cir.1987). Appellant's petition revealed that the sufficiency of the evidence and jury composition issues had not been presented to the state courts at all and that the habitual offender sentencing issue had been raised for the first time in a petition for writ of error coram nobis. We find that the district court correctly concluded that the appellant was procedurally barred from asserting these claims in his federal habeas proceeding.
Appellant advances, as the cause of his procedural default on these issues, the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schenk
...(crediting as professionally reasonable counsel's decision not to file what he believed to be a meritless motion), Ladd v. Jones, 864 F.2d 108, 110 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[S]ince these claims were meritless, it was clearly not ineffective for counsel not to pursue them."), defendant fails to sh......
-
Thigpen v. Thigpen
...appeal was a procedural default under Alabama law. See Pelmer v. White, 877 F.2d 1518, 1521 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam); Ladd v. Jones, 864 F.2d 108, 109 (11th Cir.) ("Under Alabama law, a failure to raise an issue either at trial or on direct appeal from the conviction constitutes a proce......
-
Lutz v. Palmer
...it was, Petitioner's counsel's performance in failing to challenge the nolle pros cannot be considered deficient. See Ladd v. Jones, 864 F.2d 108, 110 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding where "claims were meritless, it was clearly not ineffective for counsel not to pursue them."). This finding also ......
-
United States v. Padgett
...(1984)). Counsel is clearly not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless issue on appeal. Shere, 537 F.3d at 1311; Ladd v. Jones, 864 F.2d 108, 110 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[S]ince these claims were meritless, it was clearly not ineffective for counsel not to pursue them."). Finally, the Elev......