McDonald v. Blackburn, 86-3344
Citation | 806 F.2d 613 |
Decision Date | 24 December 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 86-3344,86-3344 |
Parties | Wendell McDONALD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Edward J. Castaing, Jr. (Court-appointed), New Orleans, La., for petitioner-appellant.
Michael McMahon, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, La., for respondent-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Wendell McDonald (McDonald) appeals the dismissal of this his second petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 challenging his Louisiana first degree murder conviction and life sentence. We affirm.
McDonald was indicted for and convicted of the July 6, 1977 first degree murder of Robyn Seymour, contrary to LSA-R.S. 14:30. His conviction and life sentence, as well as the convicting trial court's denial of his motion for new trial, were affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. State v. McDonald, 387 So.2d 1116 (La.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 957, 101 S.Ct. 366, 66 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980). Sometime thereafter, McDonald, with the assistance of the Loyola University Law Clinic, filed a habeas corpus petition under section 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana challenging his conviction. The United States magistrate recommended denial of relief, and the district court, Judge Veronica Wicker, approved the magistrate's report and dismissed the petition on August 26, 1981. McDonald did not appeal.
In May 1984, McDonald filed the instant habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, again challenging his murder conviction and alleging only two grounds for relief, as follows:
In a memorandum accompanying his petition (as well as in a subsequent supporting memorandum filed below by McDonald's counsel), McDonald explained that the first ground related to the trial testimony of a fellow prisoner, Gerard Edwards, as to incriminating statements McDonald made to Edwards while they were cell mates following McDonald's arrest, and after counsel had been appointed for McDonald at his initial appearance before the state magistrate, but before McDonald was indicted, or charged by information, and before any preliminary examination or arraignment. Edwards, McDonald asserted, had, unbeknown to McDonald, agreed with the police, in return for favorable treatment respecting charges against him, to elicit information from McDonald as to his involvement in the Seymour murder. With respect to the second ground in McDonald's current habeas petition, the mentioned memorandum reflects that it relates to Edwards' testimony at the state court hearing on McDonald's motion for new trial, at which Edwards recanted his trial testimony and asserted that McDonald made no such statements to him respecting the Seymour murder.
As the magistrate below found, McDonald's prior habeas petition alleged the following grounds for relief:
In the instant proceeding, the magistrate, sua sponte, using the model form promulgated for such purpose, advised McDonald that his petition was subject to dismissal under Rule 9(b) of the Rules following 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, because " the prior petition, and
McDonald, within the twenty days allowed, endorsed the following response on the Rule 9 form:
In an accompanying memorandum, McDonald stated, with respect to ground one of this current petition:
Sometime following this response, the magistrate appointed counsel for McDonald, and ordered an evidentiary hearing "to determine at what point petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached."
McDonald was represented by counsel at the evidentiary hearing, and the evidence there consisted of the testimony of one of the Orleans Parish magistrate judges, who had not participated in McDonald's case, the director and a senior staff attorney of the Orleans Indigent Defender Board (OIDB), neither of whom had been involved in McDonald's case, and OIDB attorney Cuccia, who had been appointed to represent McDonald at his initial appearance before the state magistrate on August 4, 1977, pursuant to La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 230.1 1 (following McDonald's August 16, 1977 first degree murder indictment, other counsel were appointed to represent him). Except for a portion of Cuccia's testimony concerning his appointment, the evidence at the hearing did not directly relate to McDonald's case, but rather concerned the general nature and scope of representation, in 1977, of OIDB attorneys appointed at the initial magistrate appearance pursuant to article 230.1.
The state record in McDonald's case was also available and considered. It reflected that Robyn Seymour was kidnapped, murdered, and robbed of her jewelry and about twenty dollars in cash on July 6, 1977 in New Orleans. McDonald, and a female companion, Bobbie Jean Johnson, were arrested together in New Orleans for a traffic violation on July 26, 1977, and a pistol, which later turned out to belong to McDonald and to be the Seymour murder weapon, was then found in Johnson's purse. McDonald, advised that he was a suspect in the Seymour killing, was questioned by the police on July 26. He denied all knowledge of the Seymour crime, but was nevertheless retained in custody. He was questioned again on August 3, and admitted that he owned the pistol found in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Embrey v. Hershberger
...not make showing that the ends of justice required the court to examine arguments made in a successive petition); McDonald v. Blackburn, 806 F.2d 613, 621-23 (5th Cir.1986) (applying ends of justice test to successive petition of prisoner convicted of non-capital offense). Cf. George v. Per......
-
Williams v. Whitley
...considered and rejected in his first round of federal habeas"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 907, 116 L.Ed.2d 808 (1992); McDonald, 806 F.2d at 621 (similar). Williams' petition clearly does not advance a new ground for relief under this This court's rejection of Williams' Taylor ......
-
State v. Marshall
...returned from a meeting with police to his jail cell and declared to the jailhouse informant that police had “the ring.” 806 F.2d 613, 618 (5th Cir.1986). When the informant asked “what ring?” the defendant answered that it was the ring taken from the murder victim. Id. The Fifth Circuit fo......
-
United States v. Ware
...remark that the defendant's version of the crime "didn't sound too good" was not a deliberate eliciting); McDonald v. Blackburn , 806 F.2d 613, 622 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding informant asking, "What ring?" was not a deliberate eliciting), cert. denied , 481 U.S. 1070, 107 S.Ct. 2465, 95 L.Ed.......