Butler v. Vannoy et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 . For the reasons articulated in this order, Butler has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation clearly and correctly disposes of each of petitioner's claims. IT IS ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/19/2017.(cg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JODY BUTLER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-3399

DARREL VANNOY

SECTION “R” (5)
ORDER

Before the Court are Jody Butler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus,1
and his objections 2 to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 3
that the petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Court, having reviewed de
novo the petition, the state’s response, 4 the record, the applicable law, the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the petitioner’s
objections,

hereby

approves

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion.
Butler is a prisoner at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. 5 On February
11, 2011, he was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender after
a jury found him guilty of marijuana possession and cocaine possession. 6

1
2
3
4
5
6

R. Doc. 3.
R. Doc. 14.
R. Doc. 13.
R. Doc. 12.
R. Doc. 3.
Id. at 1; R. Doc. 13 at 1-2.

The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit initially reversed
Butler’s conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds, but his conviction was
ultimately upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court. State v. Butler, 117 So.
3d 87 (La. 2013).
In his objections, Butler argues that his constitutional rights to due
process and equal protection were violated because the Louisiana Supreme
Court allowed the state to raise a new basis for probable cause for the first
time on appeal, allegedly in violation of state rules of criminal procedure.7
But federal courts may not grant habeas relief based on violations of state
law, and “a mere error of state law is not a denial of due process.” Swarthout
v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 222 (2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
As the Magistrate Judge explained, Butler’s substantive Fourth Amendment
challenge is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Stone v. Powell, 428
U.S. 465, 481 (1976); see also Moreno v. Dretke, 450 F.3d 158, 167 (5th Cir.
2006) (explaining that state court “errors in adjudicating Fourth

R. Doc. 14. Butler also contends that the Louisiana Supreme Court’s
decision violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51. But “state courts
are not bound to follow the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, so federal
habeas relief is unavailable under this theory.” Wolfe v. Puckett, 998 F.2d
1014, 1993 WL 277206, at *2 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Frank v.
Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980).
2
7

Amendment claims are not an exception to Stone’s bar”). Butler’s objections
are therefore without merit.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings provides that
“[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order,
the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate
should issue.” Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, Rule 11(a). A
court may issue a certificate of appealability only if the petitioner makes “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, Rule 11(a) (noting
that § 2253(c)(2) supplies the controlling standard).

The “controlling

standard” for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to show
“that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that)
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the
issues presented [are] ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
For the reasons articulated in this order, Butler has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation clearly and correctly disposes of each
of petitioner’s claims.
3

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of September, 2017.
19th

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4