Willie Houston v. Larry Norris

Opinion

___________

No. 94-3732 ___________

Willie Houston, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Larry Norris, Acting Director, * Eastern District of Arkansas. Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] Correction, * * Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 7, 1996

Filed: February 13, 1996 ___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1988, a jury found Willie Houston guilty of first degree murder. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, Houston v. State, 771 S.W.2d 16 (Ark. 1989), and denied postconviction relief, Houston v. State, No. CR 88-194 (Ark. Dec. 10, 1990) (unpublished per curiam). In 1992, Houston filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict at the close of the case and to object to jury instructions; the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence allegedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and his conviction was based on insufficient evidence. The district court1 dismissed the

1 The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District petition, and Houston appeals.

We conclude the district court correctly determined Houston's ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally barred, and Houston did not establish cause and prejudice to excuse his default. See Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 884-85 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 355 (1994); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 535-36 (1986); Johnson v. Lockhart, 944 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1991). The district court also properly rejected Houston's Fourth Amendment claim, see Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976); Willett v. Lockhart, 37 F.3d 1265, 1268-69 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1432 (1995), as well as his sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, see Becker v. Lockhart, 971 F.2d 172, 175 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 98 (1993); Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-10-102(a)(2), 5-2-202(1); Furr v. State, 822 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Ark. 1992).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

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

of Arkansas.

-2-