Llamas-Almaguer v. Wainwright, LLAMAS-ALMAGUER
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before HILL; SMITH |
| Citation | 666 F.2d 191 |
| Parties | Thomas Rafael, a/k/a Tomas Llamas, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, and the Honorable Jim Smith, Attorney General, State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees. . Unit B * |
| Docket Number | No. 80-5374,LLAMAS-ALMAGUER,80-5374 |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1982 |
Page 191
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Offender
Rehabilitation, and the Honorable Jim Smith,
Attorney General, State of Florida,
Respondents-Appellees.
Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 22, 1982.
Page 192
Long & Smith, Harold Long, Jr., Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.
Steven L. Bolotin, Calianne P. Lantz, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before HILL, Circuit Judge, SMITH **, Judge, and HENDERSON, Circuit Judge.
SMITH, Judge:
Thomas Rafael Llamas-Almaguer (appellant) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered April 15, 1980, which dismissed appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant filed the petition with the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he had been illegally convicted in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Dade County, Florida, of conspiracy to aid or assist in the conduct of a lottery and aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleged, inter alia, that his conviction was illegally obtained by the use of wiretap orders authorized by the state court but which were issued in violation of his constitutional rights under the fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments, or
Page 193
which did not meet the minimum standards contained in title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. (hereinafter title III).As noted by District Judge Spellman in the order of dismissal, appellant raised the same constitutional objections in a motion to suppress the wiretap evidence in the state trial court. That motion was denied and appellant thereafter entered pleas of nolo contendere to each of the charges against him, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. Appellant was convicted and instituted an appeal in which he raised, and the state appellate court addressed, the identical issues as to the wiretap orders raised in his petition to the United States district court. That court confirmed appellant's conviction, Cuba v. State, 362 So.2d 29 (Fla.App.3d Dist. 1978), and the Florida Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for writ of certiorari.
In his appeal to this court, as in his petition for habeas corpus below, appellant claims several violations of his constitutional and statutory rights, none of which, we conclude, can be heard in this court on a habeas corpus petition.
As to his fifth and ninth amendment claims, appellant makes no arguments based on those amendments, he cites no cases concerned with them, and he alleges no facts suggesting violations of them. We therefore deny relief based on the fifth and ninth amendments.
Appellant also alleged two violations of the Florida wiretapping statute (Fla.Stat. § 934.09): staleness of evidence establishing probable cause and using one wiretap as probable cause for another. But it is elementary that questions of state law cannot be raised on federal habeas. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) ("only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the * * * laws * * * of the United States").
Appellant claims several violations of the fourth amendment, as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment: lack of probable cause, lack of a neutral and detached magistrate, and use of a general warrant. While these charges, if true, would state claims under the fourth amendment, we are precluded by Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinson v. Tucker, Case No. 3:10cv480/RV/MD
...a federal constitutional nature. See Carrizales v. Wainwright, 699 F.2d 1053, 1055 (11thPage 29Cir. 1983); Llamas-Almaguer v. Wainwright, 666 F.2d 191 (5th Cir.1982).15 The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "[i]n the area of state sentencing guidelines in particular, we consiste......
-
Dobbert v. Strickland, 82-84-Civ-J-B.
...this Court is bound by the Florida Supreme Court's application of Tedder to the facts of this case. Llamas-Almaguer v. Wainwright, 666 F.2d 191 at 193 (5th Cir. 1982); Hall v. Wainwright, 493 F.2d 37, 39 (5th Cir. 1974). Therefore, relief as to this ground of the petition must be F. Unconst......
-
Barboza v. Bissonnette, Civil. Action No. 03-10600-JLT.
...an allegation of a violation of the federal wiretapping statute may be presented in a habeas petition. See Llamas-Almaguer v. Wainwright, 666 F.2d 191, 193-94 (5th Cir. 1982); Adams v. Lankford, 788 F.2d 1493, 1495 (11th Cir.1986).4 The distinction Page 34 based on the fact that in Stone "t......
-
Dennis v. Crews, CASE NO. 13-21064-CIV-ZLOCH
...for federal habeas corpus purposes. Carrizales v. Wainwright, 699 F.2d 1053 (11th Cir. 1983)(citing Llamas-Almaguer v. Wainwright, 666 F.2d 191, 193 (5th Cir., Unit B, 1982)). A state's interpretation of its own laws or rules provides no basis for federal habeas corpus relief, since no ques......