Burden v. Jones et al (INMATE 1)
ORDER as follows: 1. Mr. Burden's 49 Objections are OVERRULED. 2. The 48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED. 3. Mr. Burden's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 4. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 10/28/2008. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T H E MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION A N D R E W PHILLIP BURDEN, P e t i t io n e r , v. K E N N E T H JONES, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER O n October 3, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation that the court deny P e titio n e r Andrew Phillip Burden's ("Mr. Burden") 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismiss th is action with prejudice. (Doc. # 48.) Mr. Burden filed objections on October 16, 2008, c h a lle n g in g the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation as to "issues A [and] B." (Doc. # 49.) M r. Burden argues, first, that his murder conviction "cannot be upheld" because there is no d ire c t evidence that he "intended to kill [the] victim," and, second, that the resultant " a cc id e n ta l" shooting presents a "clear case of manslaughter," but not murder. (Doc. # 49 a t 1-2.) Mr. Burden, therefore, says that his § 2254 petition should be granted. (Doc. # 49 at 1.) Having conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the R e c o m m e n d a tio n to which objections are made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court finds th a t the objections are without merit. Mr. Burden's first argument plows no new ground; it is addressed fully and soundly in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. (See, e.g., Doc.
C A S E NO. 3:05-CV-1128-WKW [w o]
# 48 at 20 (concluding that Mr. Burden's substantive claim of actual innocence, based "on e v id e n c e presented at trial which indicated he did not intend to kill the victim because his s h o o tin g of the victim was simply an accident," failed to present a proper basis for federal h a b e as relief); Doc. # 48 at 28 ("[V]iewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution," the e v id e n c e and its reasonable inferences showed "that [Mr.] Burden, upon encouragement from h is nephew, shot the victim in the head with a shotgun causing the victim's death" and were "su ff icien t to support a finding of guilt by the jury.").) Turning to Mr. Burden's contention that the evidence supports only a conviction for m a n sla u g h ter , this precise argument presents an entirely new and, resultantly, untimely claim. T o the extent, however, that the argument challenges the jury's finding that Mr. Burden was g u i l t y of murder, that the trial court erred in denying his requested charge on the lesser in c lu d e d offense of criminally negligent homicide, or that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury charge on manslaughter, the Magistrate Judge applied the appropriate s ta n d a rd s of review and correctly resolved these issues against Mr. Burden. (See, e.g., Doc. # 49 at 17 n.8, 20-25, 28-29, 31-39.) Mr. Burden simply has not demonstrated any legal or f a c tu a l error in the Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. M r. Burden's objections (Doc. # 49) are OVERRULED. T h e Recommendation (Doc. # 48) is ADOPTED. M r. Burden's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) is DENIED. T h is action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
A n appropriate judgment will be entered. D O N E this 28th day of October, 2008. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?