John E. Thompson v. James Purkett, State of Missouri

Eighth Circuit

John E. Thompson v. James Purkett, State of Missouri

901 F.2d 670, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6001, 1990 WL 44172

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1990

Docket89-1684

StatusPublished

This text of 901 F.2d 670 (John E. Thompson v. James Purkett, State of Missouri) 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

John E. Thompson v. James Purkett, State of Missouri, 901 F.2d 670, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6001, 1990 WL 44172 (8th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

STROM, Chief Judge.

John Thompson appeals the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in trial counsel’s failure to call certain witnesses. Thompson was convicted of burglary in Missouri state court based on eyewitness identification. The eyewitness identification was based *671 partially upon missing teeth. Appellant asserts that the testimony of the witnesses could have established that he lost his teeth in a boating accident which occurred subsequent to the eyewitness identification.

To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must demonstrate that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). He must also show that the attorney’s deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. In order to make that showing, appellant must demonstrate that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of his trial would have been different. Id. Appellant has failed to meet this test.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that an opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

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

STROM, Chief Judge.

John Thompson appeals the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in trial counsel’s failure to call certain witnesses. Thompson was convicted of burglary in Missouri state court based on eyewitness identification. The eyewitness identification was based *671 partially upon missing teeth. Appellant asserts that the testimony of the witnesses could have established that he lost his teeth in a boating accident which occurred subsequent to the eyewitness identification.

To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must demonstrate that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). He must also show that the attorney’s deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. In order to make that showing, appellant must demonstrate that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of his trial would have been different. Id. Appellant has failed to meet this test.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that an opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

901 F.2d 670, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6001, 1990 WL 44172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-e-thompson-v-james-purkett-state-of-missouri-ca8-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack