Wall v. Booker ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                             United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                       July 16, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-60875
    Summary Calendar
    JEROME MAURICE WALL,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    WALTER BOOKER, Superintendent of Mississippi
    State Penitentiary; CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS,
    Commissioner, Mississippi Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 2:00-CV-16-P-A
    Before JOLLY, JONES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jerome Maurice Wall appeals the district court’s denial
    of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition.        A certificate of appealability
    was   granted   for   the   issue   of    whether    the   imposition      of
    Mississippi’s habitual offender statute was proper where Wall’s
    service of one prior sentence was interrupted by an interstate
    transfer between jails.       Wall contends that the evidence was
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    insufficient to sentence him under the habitual offender statute
    and   that   his   counsel     ineffectively   failed    to   challenge   the
    imposition.    Wall also asserts that the district court erroneously
    failed to hold an evidentiary hearing.
    This court must defer to the determination implicit in
    the denial of state habeas corpus relief that the interruption did
    not vitiate the service of the sentence under state law.           See Young
    v. Dretke, 
    356 F.3d 616
    , 628 (5th Cir. 2004).            That legal deter-
    mination is dispositive of all of Wall’s constitutional claims.
    Therefore,     there     was   no   factual    dispute   necessitating     an
    evidentiary hearing.       See Ward v. Whitley, 
    21 F.3d 1355
    , 1367 (5th
    Cir. 1994).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-60875

Judges: Jolly, Jones, Clement

Filed Date: 7/16/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024