Williams v. Cain ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30853
Summary Calendar
AUGUST WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana
State Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CV-3762-M
- - - - - - - - - -
June 30, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
August Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 74774, appeals the
denial of his application for habeas relief filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted him a certificate of
appealability (COA) on two issues: (1) whether the trial court
erred in resentencing him to life imprisonment after his death
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-30853
-2-
sentence was vacated, in violation of his rights under the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses; and (2) whether his
sentence implicates his rights under the Due Process Clause
because his parole eligibility is vitiated by La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
15:574.4(B)’s requirement that his life sentence be commuted to a
fixed term of years before he may be considered for parole.
Because it is unclear from the record whether the merits of
these claims were adjudicated by the Louisiana courts, we review
this matter de novo. See Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409, 416
(5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1845 (1998).
Williams claims that his sentence violates his guarantee to
due process in several respects. All of these claims, however,
are founded exclusively upon purported violations of state law.
Accordingly, they are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
See Weeks v. Scott, 55 F.3d 1059, 1063 (5th Cir. 1995).
Nor does Williams’s sentence implicate his rights under the
Equal Protection Clause. “The equal protection clause
essentially requires that all persons similarly situated be
treated alike.” Mahone v. Addicks Utility Dist. of Harris
County, 836 F.2d 921, 932 (5th Cir. 1988). Williams cannot
demonstrate that he and the defendant in State v. Fraise, 350 So.
2d 154 (La. 1977) are similarly situated. By the time Fraise was
convicted, Louisiana had amended the relevant statutory scheme to
delete the possibility of a life term for defendants convicted of
aggravated rape. See State v. Craig, 340 So. 2d 191, 193-94 (La.
1976). Accordingly, unlike Williams, Fraise could not be given a
term of life upon resentencing.
No. 98-30853
-3-
Williams’s assertions regarding his ineligibility for parole
are equally unavailing. Williams, in essence, argues that
15:574.4(B)’s commutation requirement denies him the parole
eligibility granted him by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Williams
again fails to assert a claim cognizable in habeas review, as
this claim urges merely a violation of Louisiana law. See
§ 2254(a); Jackson v. Anderson, 112 F.3d 823, 825 (5th Cir.
1997). His claim that his sentence violates article 879 of
Louisiana’s Code of Criminal Procedure falters for the same
reason. Accordingly, the denial of Williams’s § 2254 application
is
AFFIRMED.