Ramsey v. Anderson ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60426
Summary Calendar
FRANK RAMSEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JAMES V. ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT,
MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No.2:92-CV-129-S
- - - - - - - - - -
April 9, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Frank Ramsey, #05553, appeals the denial of his petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Ramsey argues that the habitual-offender portion of his
indictment is fatally defective because it was based on a prior
conviction for which his sentence was served in county jail. The
Mississippi Supreme Court held Ramsey’s indictment sufficient
under state law, thus, consideration of Ramsey’s claim is
foreclosed. McKay v. Collins, 12 F.3d 66, 68 (5th Cir. 1994).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-60426
-2-
Ramsey argues that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel because his attorney allowed him to be sentenced based on
the defective indictment. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687-88 (1984).
Ramsey argues for the first time on appeal that his
indictment is fatally defective because the language charging him
as an habitual offender was placed after the phrase “against the
peace and dignity of the state” and that he was denied effective
assistance of counsel because his attorney allowed him to be
sentenced as a habitual offender based on the defective
indictment. This court declines to review these claims. See
United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir. 1998).
Ramsey also raises issues concerning extradition, double
jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, admissibility of
evidence, the prosecution’s closing remarks, the sufficiency of
the evidence, failure of the affidavit of the foreman to
accompany the indictment, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Ramsey failed to argue or discuss these issues in his appellate
brief; thus, they are abandoned. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a); Grant v.
Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.