Gloria Simon Aucoin v. Warden Jones, Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women

Fifth Circuit

Gloria Simon Aucoin v. Warden Jones, Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women

759 F.2d 449, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29210

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1985

Docket84-4330

StatusPublished

This text of 759 F.2d 449 (Gloria Simon Aucoin v. Warden Jones, Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women) 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

Gloria Simon Aucoin v. Warden Jones, Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, 759 F.2d 449, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29210 (5th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

At the outset of this appeal from denial of a state prisoner’s petition for statutory habeas relief, 1 we face an exhaustion problem: her appointed counsel advances to us four issues that have been presented neither to the state courts nor to the federal district court from whose judgment she appeals. We cannot, therefore, properly consider them. Burns v. Estelle, 695 F.2d 847 (5th Cir.1983), citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). It is the rule of our Circuit, however, that where unexhausted claims are drawn before us on appeal which were not presented to the district court — claims that because of the latter circumstance we would not ordinarily consider in any event — and the only remaining issue or issues presented were both exhausted and presented to the federal trial court, we will dismiss the former, improperly presented issues without prejudice and review the latter. Williams v. Maggio, 727 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir.1984). We do so today.

The sole issue properly before us is whether the evidence presented at’ her state trial was, when considered in the light most favorable to the judgment of conviction, such that a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of her crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Bujol v. Cain, 713 F.2d 112 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 726, 79 L.Ed.2d 187 (1984), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Specifically, petitioner contends that because of evidence that she was on drugs at the time that she murdered her young daughter, the evidence could not have been sufficient to permit a proper finding that she was capable of forming the requisite specific intent to kill. A psychiatric expert testified, however, that in his professional opinion she was capable of forming that intent despite her drugged condition. There it ends.

The claims advanced in petitioner’s first four points on appeal are dismissed without prejudice to their proper presentation elsewhere. The judgment of the trial court on her exhausted claim is

AFFIRMED;

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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

PER CURIAM:

At the outset of this appeal from denial of a state prisoner’s petition for statutory habeas relief, 1 we face an exhaustion problem: her appointed counsel advances to us four issues that have been presented neither to the state courts nor to the federal district court from whose judgment she appeals. We cannot, therefore, properly consider them. Burns v. Estelle, 695 F.2d 847 (5th Cir.1983), citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). It is the rule of our Circuit, however, that where unexhausted claims are drawn before us on appeal which were not presented to the district court — claims that because of the latter circumstance we would not ordinarily consider in any event — and the only remaining issue or issues presented were both exhausted and presented to the federal trial court, we will dismiss the former, improperly presented issues without prejudice and review the latter. Williams v. Maggio, 727 F.2d 1387 (5th Cir.1984). We do so today.

The sole issue properly before us is whether the evidence presented at’ her state trial was, when considered in the light most favorable to the judgment of conviction, such that a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of her crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Bujol v. Cain, 713 F.2d 112 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 726, 79 L.Ed.2d 187 (1984), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Specifically, petitioner contends that because of evidence that she was on drugs at the time that she murdered her young daughter, the evidence could not have been sufficient to permit a proper finding that she was capable of forming the requisite specific intent to kill. A psychiatric expert testified, however, that in his professional opinion she was capable of forming that intent despite her drugged condition. There it ends.

The claims advanced in petitioner’s first four points on appeal are dismissed without prejudice to their proper presentation elsewhere. The judgment of the trial court on her exhausted claim is

AFFIRMED;

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

759 F.2d 449, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-simon-aucoin-v-warden-jones-louisiana-correctional-institute-for-ca5-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack