Fernando Patino v. Rick Thaler, Director

Fifth Circuit

Fernando Patino v. Rick Thaler, Director

431 F. App'x 258

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 2011

Docket10-10352

StatusUnpublished

This text of 431 F. App'x 258 (Fernando Patino v. Rick Thaler, Director) 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

Fernando Patino v. Rick Thaler, Director, 431 F. App'x 258 (5th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Fernando Patino, Texas prisoner # 1153575, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his murder conviction. This court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue whether the district court erred by dismissing Patino’s claims that prospective jurors James Estes and John Grimland were biased and should have been excused for cause.

A federal court must give deference to a state habeas court’s determination of the merits of the prisoner’s claims, unless the state decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d)(1) & (2). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo. Propes v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 225, 227 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3272, 176 L.Ed.2d 1188 (2010).

Even if Estes and Grimland were biased, Patino’s constitutional rights were *259 not violated because he used peremptory-challenges to strike both of them from jury service. See United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 307, 311, 120 S.Ct. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000); United States v. Sanchez-Hernandez, 507 F.3d 826, 830 (5th Cir.2007). His arguments that his case falls within the exceptions to Martinez-Salazar are entirely conclusory. See Ross v. Estelle, 694 F.2d 1008, 1012 (5th Cir.1983). He fails to show that he is entitled to habeas relief. See § 2254(d)(1) & (2); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Fernando Patino, Texas prisoner # 1153575, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his murder conviction. This court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue whether the district court erred by dismissing Patino’s claims that prospective jurors James Estes and John Grimland were biased and should have been excused for cause.

A federal court must give deference to a state habeas court’s determination of the merits of the prisoner’s claims, unless the state decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d)(1) & (2). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo. Propes v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 225, 227 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3272, 176 L.Ed.2d 1188 (2010).

Even if Estes and Grimland were biased, Patino’s constitutional rights were *259 not violated because he used peremptory-challenges to strike both of them from jury service. See United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 307, 311, 120 S.Ct. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000); United States v. Sanchez-Hernandez, 507 F.3d 826, 830 (5th Cir.2007). His arguments that his case falls within the exceptions to Martinez-Salazar are entirely conclusory. See Ross v. Estelle, 694 F.2d 1008, 1012 (5th Cir.1983). He fails to show that he is entitled to habeas relief. See § 2254(d)(1) & (2); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

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)

431 F. App'x 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernando-patino-v-rick-thaler-director-ca5-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack