Norris v. Hobbs

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 6 the recommended disposition; dismissing 1 the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, with prejudice; and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 1/13/2015. (kdr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
PAUL NORRIS, JR.
ADC #144669,
v.

PETITIONER

CASE NO: 5:14CV00193 BSM

RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction

RESPONDENT
ORDER

The recommended disposition (“RD”) submitted by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and
petitioner’s objections thereto have been reviewed. After carefully reviewing the record, de
novo, the conclusion of the RD is adopted but for a different reason than the one provided
by the RD.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 321, 324 (1979), provides that a federal habeas
corpus proceeding may be cognizable when a prisoner claims that his state criminal
conviction is not supported by the evidence. If, however, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, such evidence is sufficient to support
the challenged conviction. Id. at 319; Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S. Ct. 2060, 2064 (2012).
When the evidence presented to the jury in petitioner Paul Norris’s trial is viewed in the light
most favorable to the state, a rational fact-finder readily could have found beyond a
reasonable doubt that Norris was guilty of capital murder, aggravated robbery, and firstdegree battery. Norris’s habeas petition is therefore without merit.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No.1], pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, filed by Norris is dismissed with prejudice. In § 2254 cases, a certificate of
appealability may issue only if the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As there is no issue on which Norris has
made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability
is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of January 2015.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2