Meyer v. Dretke

104 F. App'x 956
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 14, 2004
Docket03-11195
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 104 F. App'x 956 (Meyer v. Dretke) 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
Meyer v. Dretke, 104 F. App'x 956 (5th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Allen Meyer, Texas prisoner number 875969, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. A certificate of appealability was granted as to the issue whether the district court erred in rejecting Meyer’s speedy-trial claim under the standard of review in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Meyer contends that the decision of the state appellate court affirming his convictions was contrary to established Supreme Court precedent in Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 94 S.Ct. 188, 38 L.Ed.2d 183 (1973) and Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992), as it required him to make an affirmative showing of prejudice. Meyer contends that, under Moore and Doggett, prejudice must be presumed.

The state appellate court properly balanced the four factors delineated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The state court’s decision does not indicate that the court considered this to be a case in which the first three factors weighed so heavily in Meyer’s favor that a showing of prejudice was unnecessary. Doggett, 505 U.S. at 655-56, 112 S.Ct. 2686. Meyer has not shown that the decision of the state appellate court was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, the above cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 F. App'x 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-dretke-ca5-2004.