Aldaco v. Quarterman

Fifth Circuit

Aldaco v. Quarterman

185 F. App'x 358

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 2006

Docket03-20566

StatusUnpublished

This text of 185 F. App'x 358 (Aldaco v. Quarterman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aldaco v. Quarterman, 185 F. App'x 358 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Prisoner Alfred Aldaco appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus application, challenging the outcome of his 2001 parole hearing. He contends that the application of a 1995 provision of Texas parole law — increasing, for his case, the number of votes for parole from 2-out-of-3 to 12-out-of-18, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because it increased the punishment for his offense.

In state court, Aldaco presented the hearing minutes showing that two board members had voted for his release on parole. Aldaco, however, presented no evidence in state court, and did not allege in his state habeas petition, that those two members would have sat on the three-member panel that would have considered him for parole under the former statutory scheme.

Aldaco did not present sufficient evidence in state court to demonstrate that the application of the post-1995 statute created a sufficient risk of increased punishment to warrant habeas relief. See Cal. Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995); Goodwin v. Dretke, 150 Fed.Appx. 295, 300 (5th Cir.2005). The state court’s rejection of Aldaco’s claim was not an unreasonable application of the law, based on the facts presented to it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Prisoner Alfred Aldaco appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus application, challenging the outcome of his 2001 parole hearing. He contends that the application of a 1995 provision of Texas parole law — increasing, for his case, the number of votes for parole from 2-out-of-3 to 12-out-of-18, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because it increased the punishment for his offense.

In state court, Aldaco presented the hearing minutes showing that two board members had voted for his release on parole. Aldaco, however, presented no evidence in state court, and did not allege in his state habeas petition, that those two members would have sat on the three-member panel that would have considered him for parole under the former statutory scheme.

Aldaco did not present sufficient evidence in state court to demonstrate that the application of the post-1995 statute created a sufficient risk of increased punishment to warrant habeas relief. See Cal. Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 509, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995); Goodwin v. Dretke, 150 Fed.Appx. 295, 300 (5th Cir.2005). The state court’s rejection of Aldaco’s claim was not an unreasonable application of the law, based on the facts presented to it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F. App'x 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aldaco-v-quarterman-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack