Eddie Lee v. Burl Cain, Warden
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-31046 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ , Judge: TMR , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 10/28/2010 [09-31046]
Eddie Lee v. Burl Cain, Warden
Doc. 0
Case: 09-31046
Document: 00511256393
Page: 1
Date Filed: 10/07/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-31046 October 7, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk E D D I E D. LEE, P e titio n e r-A p p e lla n t v. B U R L CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, R e s p o n d e n t -A p p e lle e
A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:08-CV-5180
B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* E d d ie D. Lee, Louisiana prisoner #102226, appeals the denial of his 2 8 U.S.C. § 2254 application. He was charged with possession with intent to d is t r ib u t e cocaine but convicted of simple possession. The district court granted L e e a certificate of appealability on whether the Louisiana appellate court on p o s t c o n v ic t io n review applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1 9 8 4 ), in an objectively unreasonable manner by concluding that Lee suffered n o prejudice when his counsel allowed him to be tried in prison clothing.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 09-31046
Document: 00511256393 Page: 2 No. 09-31046
Date Filed: 10/07/2010
H a b e a s relief may not be granted with respect to a claim that was a d ju d ic a t e d on the merits in state court, unless the state decision "was contrary t o , or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, a s determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," § 2254(d)(1), or "was b a s e d on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence p r e s e n t e d in the State court proceeding." § 2254(d)(2). "A merely incorrect state c o u r t decision is not sufficient to constitute an unreasonable application of fe d e r a l law; rather, the decision must be objectively unreasonable." Virgil v. D r e tk e , 446 F.3d 598, 604 (5th Cir. 2006). We may not reverse a state court's d e c is io n "merely because we would reach a different outcome"; rather we must " c o n c lu d e that the state court decision applies the correct legal rule to a given s e t of facts in a manner that is so patently incorrect as to be `unreasonable.'" Gardner v. Johnson, 247 F.3d 551, 560 (5th Cir. 2001). S e c t io n 2254(d)(2) applies to the state court's overall determination of facts r e le v a n t to its decision. Fields v. Thaler, 588 F.3d 270, 279 (5th Cir. 2009). A s t a t e court's discreet factual findings are presumed to be correct, but a petitioner m a y rebut such presumption with clear and convincing evidence. Id.;
§ 2254(e)(1). A state court's "factual determination is not unreasonable merely b e c a u s e the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in t h e first instance." Wood v. Allen, 130 S. Ct. 841, 849 (2010). T o obtain relief based on the ineffectiveness of counsel, Lee must establish t h a t counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance p r e ju d ic e d the defense. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. To establish prejudice, h e must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's d e fic ie n t performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. See id. at 694. T h e state appellate court reasoned that there was no Strickland prejudice b e c a u s e the evidence of Lee's guilt was "clear" and "overwhelming." Lee argues t h a t the evidence was not "overwhelming" and that the state court's evaluation 2
Case: 09-31046
Document: 00511256393 Page: 3 No. 09-31046
Date Filed: 10/07/2010
o f the evidence was therefore "an unreasonable determination of the facts in lig h t of the evidence" adduced at trial. The State argues that the trial evidence w a s sufficient to establish Lee's guilt so that the state appellate court's d e t e r m in a t io n of the facts was not unreasonable. In addition, the State argues t h a t a lack or prejudice is shown by the defense's success in getting the verdict it sought on the lesser offense of drug possession. W e need not decide specifically whether the evidence against Lee was " o v e r w h e lm in g " but only whether "counsel's unprofessional errors . . . undermine c o n fid e n c e in the outcome" of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. At trial, a p o lic e officer testified that he chased Lee into an alley where Lee threw down a b e ig e packet. After Lee was handcuffed the officer retrieved the beige packet w h ic h contained crack cocaine. The officer's testimony was clear, direct,
u n c h a lle n g e d , and corroborated indirectly by two other policeman. Accordingly, t h e state court's determination of the facts in the light of the trial evidence was n o t unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2). See Wood, 130 S. Ct. at 849. Lee has not s h o w n that the state appellate court's application of Strickland was "so patently in c o r r e c t as to be [objectively] `unreasonable.'" Gardner, 247 F.3d at 560; see V ir g il, 446 F.3d at 604. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?