Gary Cooper v. A. L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

Eighth Circuit

Gary Cooper v. A. L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

978 F.2d 1263, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 34218, 1992 WL 307780

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1992

Docket92-1488

StatusUnpublished

This text of 978 F.2d 1263 (Gary Cooper v. A. L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction) 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

Gary Cooper v. A. L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, 978 F.2d 1263, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 34218, 1992 WL 307780 (8th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

978 F.2d 1263

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
Gary COOPER, Appellant,
v.
A. L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction,
Appellees.

No. 92-1488.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 15, 1992.
Filed: October 27, 1992.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Cooper was charged with first-degree murder and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. He now claims in this federal habeas petition that his plea should be set aside because of the ineffective assistance of his counsel.

After Cooper's conviction and sentence, he filed a post-conviction petition with the appropriate Arkansas circuit court pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. The petition was denied by the court as untimely because it was filed more than three years from the date of his conviction. The State of Arkansas argues that Petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). We agree. Petitioner alleges no cause for having filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief in the state court, and therefore his claims are barred. See Williams v. Lockhart, 873 F.2d 1129 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 (1989). The district court, moreover, found against Petitioner on the merits of all of his claims after an evidentiary hearing by the magistrate judge. We perceive no error in these findings.

The judgment below is affirmed.

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

978 F.2d 1263

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
Gary COOPER, Appellant,
v.
A. L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction,
Appellees.

No. 92-1488.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 15, 1992.
Filed: October 27, 1992.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Cooper was charged with first-degree murder and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. He now claims in this federal habeas petition that his plea should be set aside because of the ineffective assistance of his counsel.

After Cooper's conviction and sentence, he filed a post-conviction petition with the appropriate Arkansas circuit court pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. The petition was denied by the court as untimely because it was filed more than three years from the date of his conviction. The State of Arkansas argues that Petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). We agree. Petitioner alleges no cause for having filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief in the state court, and therefore his claims are barred. See Williams v. Lockhart, 873 F.2d 1129 (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 (1989). The district court, moreover, found against Petitioner on the merits of all of his claims after an evidentiary hearing by the magistrate judge. We perceive no error in these findings.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

978 F.2d 1263, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 34218, 1992 WL 307780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-cooper-v-a-l-lockhart-director-arkansas-department-of-correction-ca8-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack