Blankenship v. Baskerville

Fourth Circuit

Blankenship v. Baskerville

103 F. App'x 733

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 19, 2004

Docket03-7681

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 F. App'x 733 (Blankenship v. Baskerville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blankenship v. Baskerville, 103 F. App'x 733 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Wayne Blankenship seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the three issues raised by Blankenship on appeal: (1) whether the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence relating to statements by Commonwealth *734 witness, Kevin Cooke; (2) whether counsel was ineffective for not disclosing a conflict of interest; and (3) whether the district court erred in refusing to sever the trial of Blankenship and his brother.

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief based on a state court record. Bell v. Ozmint, 332 F.3d 229, 233 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1155, 157 L.Ed.2d 1049 (2004). Once a certificate of appealability has issued, habeas corpus relief may be granted under § 2254 only if a state court’s decision on the merits of a claim for post-conviction relief “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (discussing § 2254(d)(1)); Wilson v. Ozmint, 352 F.3d 847, 855 (4th Cir.2003), amended on other grounds by 357 F.3d 461 (4th Cir.2004), and cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2879, 159 L.Ed.2d 783 (2004).

We have independently reviewed the record in light of Blankenship’s claims and conclude that the district court did not err in denying habeas relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. While we grant Blankenship’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief, we deny his motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Wayne Blankenship seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the three issues raised by Blankenship on appeal: (1) whether the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence relating to statements by Commonwealth *734 witness, Kevin Cooke; (2) whether counsel was ineffective for not disclosing a conflict of interest; and (3) whether the district court erred in refusing to sever the trial of Blankenship and his brother.

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief based on a state court record. Bell v. Ozmint, 332 F.3d 229, 233 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1155, 157 L.Ed.2d 1049 (2004). Once a certificate of appealability has issued, habeas corpus relief may be granted under § 2254 only if a state court’s decision on the merits of a claim for post-conviction relief “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (discussing § 2254(d)(1)); Wilson v. Ozmint, 352 F.3d 847, 855 (4th Cir.2003), amended on other grounds by 357 F.3d 461 (4th Cir.2004), and cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2879, 159 L.Ed.2d 783 (2004).

We have independently reviewed the record in light of Blankenship’s claims and conclude that the district court did not err in denying habeas relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. While we grant Blankenship’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief, we deny his motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankenship-v-baskerville-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack