Charles A. Aby v. Robert Parratt, Warden

Eighth Circuit

Charles A. Aby v. Robert Parratt, Warden

660 F.2d 385, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16998

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 9, 1981

Docket81-1606

StatusPublished

This text of 660 F.2d 385 (Charles A. Aby v. Robert Parratt, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles A. Aby v. Robert Parratt, Warden, 660 F.2d 385, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16998 (8th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Charles A. Aby was convicted in 1978 in a Nebraska state court of first-degree sexual assault. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. State v. Aby, 205 Neb. 267, 287 N.W.2d 68 (1980). Thereafter, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that the testimony of the prosecuting witness was uncorroborated and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the petitioner’s conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The District Court 1 denied relief, and petitioner appealed. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 14.

We are guided, as was the District Court, by the presumption of correctness of the factual findings made by the Nebraska state courts. Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 101 S.Ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). The District Court carefully reviewed those findings, and we cannot say that that court erred in concluding that the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would support a finding by a rational trier of fact that the petitioner was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

We also hold that a rational trier of fact could find that the prosecutrix’s testimony was corroborated to the extent required by Nebraska law. It is unnecessary to discuss, and we express no view on the question, whether a state-law requirement of corroboration has any due-process significance in a federal habeas proceeding applying the rule of Jackson v. Virginia, supra. In addition, we note that the District Court dismissed a third claim by petitioner — ineffective assistance of counsel — without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner does not challenge this holding on appeal.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Warren K. Urbom, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Charles A. Aby was convicted in 1978 in a Nebraska state court of first-degree sexual assault. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. State v. Aby, 205 Neb. 267, 287 N.W.2d 68 (1980). Thereafter, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that the testimony of the prosecuting witness was uncorroborated and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the petitioner’s conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The District Court 1 denied relief, and petitioner appealed. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 14.

We are guided, as was the District Court, by the presumption of correctness of the factual findings made by the Nebraska state courts. Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 101 S.Ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). The District Court carefully reviewed those findings, and we cannot say that that court erred in concluding that the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, would support a finding by a rational trier of fact that the petitioner was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

We also hold that a rational trier of fact could find that the prosecutrix’s testimony was corroborated to the extent required by Nebraska law. It is unnecessary to discuss, and we express no view on the question, whether a state-law requirement of corroboration has any due-process significance in a federal habeas proceeding applying the rule of Jackson v. Virginia, supra. In addition, we note that the District Court dismissed a third claim by petitioner — ineffective assistance of counsel — without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner does not challenge this holding on appeal.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Warren K. Urbom, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 F.2d 385, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-a-aby-v-robert-parratt-warden-ca8-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack