Robert Joseph Butler v. Louie L. Wainwright, Etc.

Fifth Circuit

Robert Joseph Butler v. Louie L. Wainwright, Etc.

610 F.2d 334, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21096

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1980

Docket79-2503

StatusPublished

This text of 610 F.2d 334 (Robert Joseph Butler v. Louie L. Wainwright, Etc.) 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

Robert Joseph Butler v. Louie L. Wainwright, Etc., 610 F.2d 334, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21096 (5th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Robert Joseph Butler filed in the district court a pro se petition for habe-as corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, attacking his conviction in the Florida state courts for robbery and possession of firearms by a convicted felon. The court below dismissed appellant’s motion without a hearing. We affirm.

As the sole basis for his petition for habeas relief, appellant alleges that his privately retained counsel was ineffective in presenting his defense because he failed to move to suppress the fingerprint standard taken following appellant’s arrest and because he failed adequately to investigate the facts of the case. Our review of the record convinces us that counsel was not ineffective under the standard set by Fitzgerald v. Estelle, 505 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2636, 45 L.Ed.2d 675 (1975). Our affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s petition does not of itself foreclose appellant from pursuing a future action in state court based on the illegality of his arrest and the use of evidence obtained as a result of that arrest. Of course, we express no opinion on the merits of such an action.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Robert Joseph Butler filed in the district court a pro se petition for habe-as corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, attacking his conviction in the Florida state courts for robbery and possession of firearms by a convicted felon. The court below dismissed appellant’s motion without a hearing. We affirm.

As the sole basis for his petition for habeas relief, appellant alleges that his privately retained counsel was ineffective in presenting his defense because he failed to move to suppress the fingerprint standard taken following appellant’s arrest and because he failed adequately to investigate the facts of the case. Our review of the record convinces us that counsel was not ineffective under the standard set by Fitzgerald v. Estelle, 505 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2636, 45 L.Ed.2d 675 (1975). Our affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s petition does not of itself foreclose appellant from pursuing a future action in state court based on the illegality of his arrest and the use of evidence obtained as a result of that arrest. Of course, we express no opinion on the merits of such an action.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 F.2d 334, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-joseph-butler-v-louie-l-wainwright-etc-ca5-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack