Stromile v. Cockrell

Fifth Circuit

Stromile v. Cockrell

74 F. App'x 364

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 2003

Docket02-41686

StatusUnpublished

This text of 74 F. App'x 364 (Stromile v. Cockrell) 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

Stromile v. Cockrell, 74 F. App'x 364 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Petitioner-Appellant Donald Stromile, Texas prisoner # 796587, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument expressing a personal belief of Stromile’s guilt violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This is the same issue on which the district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) after ruling that Stromile’s petition was not time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have subsequently rejected this basis for denying Cockrell’s time-bar argument. See Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690, 694-95 (5th Cir.2003). A review of the record reveals that Stromile’s petition is indeed time-barred, as the limitations period was not tolled by his state habeas application, filed after expiration of the period, or by his previous habeas petition, which he voluntarily dismissed. See Grooms v. Johnson, 208 F.3d 488, 489-90 (5th Cir.1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Denial of habeas relief may be - and is - affirmed on this alternate basis. See Bickford v. International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1981). We deny as moot Stromile’s motion for appointment of counsel.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

PER CURIAM. *

Petitioner-Appellant Donald Stromile, Texas prisoner # 796587, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claim that the prosecutor’s closing argument expressing a personal belief of Stromile’s guilt violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This is the same issue on which the district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) after ruling that Stromile’s petition was not time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have subsequently rejected this basis for denying Cockrell’s time-bar argument. See Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690, 694-95 (5th Cir.2003). A review of the record reveals that Stromile’s petition is indeed time-barred, as the limitations period was not tolled by his state habeas application, filed after expiration of the period, or by his previous habeas petition, which he voluntarily dismissed. See Grooms v. Johnson, 208 F.3d 488, 489-90 (5th Cir.1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Denial of habeas relief may be - and is - affirmed on this alternate basis. See Bickford v. International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1981). We deny as moot Stromile’s motion for appointment of counsel.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 F. App'x 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stromile-v-cockrell-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack