Ybarra v. Johnson ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-10351
    Summary Calendar
    PEGGY SUE YBARRA,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
    JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    __________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:99-CV-230-Y
    ___________________________________________
    March 1, 2001
    Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Peggy Sue Ybarra, Texas prisoner # 569925, appeals the denial of her 28
    U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. She contends that the state court
    erred when it denied her claims that: (1) the State violated the confrontation clause
    by failing to produce an adverse witness at her parole-revocation hearing, and
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    (2) her parole revocation ruling violated the due process clause because the
    evidence supporting the revocation lacked sufficient reliability.
    Ybarra’s contentions do not warrant habeas relief. It is well settled that we
    “may not grant habeas relief unless the error at issue had substantial and injurious
    effect or influence in determining the proceeding’s outcome.”1 Ybarra challenges
    only the determination that she violated the conditions of her parole by committing
    aggravated robbery. Any error made in reaching this conclusion is harmless,
    however, because the order revoking Ybarra’s parole also relied on the
    unchallenged finding that she violated the conditions of her parole by failing to
    report to her parole officer.2 Either finding is sufficient to support a revocation of
    parole. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    
    1 Will. v
    . Johnson, 
    171 F.3d 300
    , 307 (5th Cir.) (internal quotation marks, footnote,
    and citations omitted), cert. denied, 
    528 U.S. 882
    (1999).
    2
    Spann v. Wainwright, 
    431 F.2d 482
    (5th Cir. 1970); United States v. McCormick, 
    54 F.3d 214
    (5th Cir. 1995).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-10351

Filed Date: 3/5/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014