Eddie Humphrey v. Florida Dept. Of Corrections

Eleventh Circuit

Eddie Humphrey v. Florida Dept. Of Corrections

450 F. App'x 877

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 2012

Docket11-13549

StatusUnpublished

This text of 450 F. App'x 877 (Eddie Humphrey v. Florida Dept. Of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eddie Humphrey v. Florida Dept. Of Corrections, 450 F. App'x 877 (11th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Humphrey, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. 1 After careful review, we affirm.

Humphrey argues on appeal that his equal protection and due process rights were violated when his wife was compelled to testify against him at his state court trial. 2 He did not, however, raise these equal protection and due process claims in state court. Instead, he argued in his state post-conviction proceedings that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his wife’s testimony. He does not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim here.

“A state habeas corpus petitioner who fails to raise his federal claims properly in state court is proeedurally barred from pursuing the same claim in federal court absent a showing of cause for and actual prejudice from the default.” Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299, 1302 (11th Cir.1999). When a petitioner has failed to present a claim to the state courts and “it is obvious that the unexhausted claims would be pro-eedurally barred in state court due to a state-law procedural default, we can forego the needless ‘judicial ping-pong 1 and just treat those claims now barred by state law as no basis for federal habeas relief.” Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732, 736 (11th Cir.1998). Here, Humphrey’s failure to raise his equal protection and due process claims on direct appeal or in his first state post-conviction petition in the Florida courts bars him from raising the issues in a successive petition, see Mills v. Florida, 684 So.2d 801, 804 n. 3 (Fla.1996), and he has failed to show good cause for the default. Thus, his equal protection and due process claims are proeedurally barred.

AFFIRMED.

1

. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition. McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir.2005).

2

. The district court granted Humphrey a Certificate of Appealability on this issue.

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

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Humphrey, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. 1 After careful review, we affirm.

Humphrey argues on appeal that his equal protection and due process rights were violated when his wife was compelled to testify against him at his state court trial. 2 He did not, however, raise these equal protection and due process claims in state court. Instead, he argued in his state post-conviction proceedings that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his wife’s testimony. He does not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim here.

“A state habeas corpus petitioner who fails to raise his federal claims properly in state court is proeedurally barred from pursuing the same claim in federal court absent a showing of cause for and actual prejudice from the default.” Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299, 1302 (11th Cir.1999). When a petitioner has failed to present a claim to the state courts and “it is obvious that the unexhausted claims would be pro-eedurally barred in state court due to a state-law procedural default, we can forego the needless ‘judicial ping-pong 1 and just treat those claims now barred by state law as no basis for federal habeas relief.” Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732, 736 (11th Cir.1998). Here, Humphrey’s failure to raise his equal protection and due process claims on direct appeal or in his first state post-conviction petition in the Florida courts bars him from raising the issues in a successive petition, see Mills v. Florida, 684 So.2d 801, 804 n. 3 (Fla.1996), and he has failed to show good cause for the default. Thus, his equal protection and due process claims are proeedurally barred.

AFFIRMED.

1

. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition. McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir.2005).

2

. The district court granted Humphrey a Certificate of Appealability on this issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 F. App'x 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddie-humphrey-v-florida-dept-of-corrections-ca11-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack