Robert David Raine v. Dave Dormire

Eighth Circuit

Robert David Raine v. Dave Dormire

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 1999

Docket98-2624

StatusUnpublished

This text of Robert David Raine v. Dave Dormire (Robert David Raine v. Dave Dormire) 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

Robert David Raine v. Dave Dormire, (8th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 98-2624 ___________

Robert David Raine, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Dave Dormire, Superintendent; Jeremiah * (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED] State of Missouri, * * Appellees. * _____________

Submitted: February 12, 1999 Filed: February 18, 1999 _____________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. _____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert David Raine appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. For several reasons, we affirm. We first reject Raine’s claim that he is actually innocent of the crime of rape. Raine has failed to show the allegedly new facts unquestionably establish his innocence, see Cornell v. Nix, 119 F.3d 1329, 1334 (8th Cir. 1997), and thus his freestanding actual innocence claim is not a proper ground for federal habeas relief, see Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404-05 (1993); Meadows v. Delo, 99 F.3d 280, 283 (8th Cir. 1996). Similarly, Raine’s claim that the trial court erroneously excluded lay testimony by Raine’s family and friends is a matter of state law that is not reviewable in this federal habeas proceeding. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). We also reject Raine’s assertion that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. Raine caused most of the delay before both of his trials, did not request a speedy trial until almost two years after his arrest, and has not shown the legitimate delays prejudiced him. See Reynolds v. Leapley, 52 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 1995). Last, we deny Raine’s claim for sanctions.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Raine’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-

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

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 98-2624 ___________

Robert David Raine, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Dave Dormire, Superintendent; Jeremiah * (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of the * [UNPUBLISHED] State of Missouri, * * Appellees. * _____________

Submitted: February 12, 1999 Filed: February 18, 1999 _____________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. _____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert David Raine appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. For several reasons, we affirm. We first reject Raine’s claim that he is actually innocent of the crime of rape. Raine has failed to show the allegedly new facts unquestionably establish his innocence, see Cornell v. Nix, 119 F.3d 1329, 1334 (8th Cir. 1997), and thus his freestanding actual innocence claim is not a proper ground for federal habeas relief, see Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404-05 (1993); Meadows v. Delo, 99 F.3d 280, 283 (8th Cir. 1996). Similarly, Raine’s claim that the trial court erroneously excluded lay testimony by Raine’s family and friends is a matter of state law that is not reviewable in this federal habeas proceeding. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). We also reject Raine’s assertion that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. Raine caused most of the delay before both of his trials, did not request a speedy trial until almost two years after his arrest, and has not shown the legitimate delays prejudiced him. See Reynolds v. Leapley, 52 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 1995). Last, we deny Raine’s claim for sanctions.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Raine’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robert David Raine v. Dave Dormire, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-david-raine-v-dave-dormire-ca8-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack