Hudson v. Hunt , 52 F. App'x 631 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    ANDREW MARK HUDSON,                   
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.                               No. 02-6568
    J. R. HUNT; NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-99-12-5-BO)
    Submitted: November 20, 2002
    Decided: December 17, 2002
    Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and
    MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Andrew Mark Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CARO-
    LINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                          HUDSON v. HUNT
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    In 1998, Andrew Mark Hudson was convicted in North Carolina
    state court of possessing cocaine and maintaining a dwelling for con-
    trolled substances. Following a jury verdict, Hudson pled guilty to
    being a habitual felon and was sentenced to a consolidated sentence
    of 100 to 129 months. No appeal was taken.
    Hudson sought state post-conviction relief. Upon its denial he filed
    a petition for federal habeas corpus relief. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    On appeal from denial of his federal petition, we held that, pursuant
    to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 
    528 U.S. 470
     (2000), Hudson’s trial counsel were constitutionally deficient in
    failing to consult with him regarding his right to appeal. We
    remanded the case for the district court’s assessment of whether Hud-
    son was prejudiced by this deficiency.
    On remand, the district court concluded that Hudson was preju-
    diced. The court granted habeas relief, "provided, however, that the
    writ shall not issue in the event the State grants [Hudson] a belated
    appeal within ninety days. . . ." The State certified within that time
    period that a belated appeal would be granted. Hudson seeks to
    appeal.
    Hudson argues that the evidence in support of his conviction is
    insufficient, and therefore he should be released and his sentence dis-
    missed. However, a belated appeal is an appropriate remedy for the
    denial of appeal due to ineffective performance by counsel. See
    Restrepo v. Kelly, 
    178 F.3d 634
    , 642 (2d Cir. 1999) (directing condi-
    tional writ unless belated appeal is granted where ineffective counsel
    failed to note timely appeal). Hudson may seek to raise a sufficiency
    of the evidence claim before the state appellate court.
    Hudson has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of
    a constitutional right, other than that for which he has received appro-
    priate relief. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
    dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
    HUDSON v. HUNT                            3
    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-6568

Citation Numbers: 52 F. App'x 631

Judges: Wilkinson, Wilkins, Motz

Filed Date: 12/17/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024