Cooley v. Ieyoub ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    for the Fifth Circuit
    _____________________________________
    No. 95-30388
    Summary Calendar
    _____________________________________
    JAMES EARL COOLEY,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    VERSUS
    RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General,
    State of Louisiana, and BURL CAIN,
    Acting Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    ______________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    (92-CV-2234 A)
    ______________________________________________________
    November 6, 1995
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:1
    Cooley appeals from the district court's order denying his
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus.     He argues that his guilty
    plea was induced by a promise, made by both the state trial judge
    and his court-appointed attorney, that he would be released from
    prison after service of ten years, six months. The alleged promise
    was never fulfilled.    Appellant filed this federal action in 1992,
    1
    Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
    have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
    the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
    expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
    Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
    should not be published.
    seven years after the final denial of his state habeas petition and
    twenty years after entering his plea of guilty to murder.
    The district court denied the petition on two grounds. First,
    it determined the state had demonstrated that the seven year delay
    had caused it prejudice and was the result of the defendant's
    failure to act with reasonable diligence.   Rule 9(a) of the Rules
    Governing Section 2254 Cases, therefore, required dismissal of the
    petition.   Second, it concluded that Cooley was not entitled to
    relief on the merits.     When a petitioner alleges that an unkept
    promise induced him to plead guilty, he must prove: (1) the exact
    terms of the alleged promise; (2) when, where, and when such a
    promise was made; and (3) the indentity of an eyewitness to the
    promise.    Smith v. Blackburn, 
    785 F.2d 545
    , 548 (5th Cir. 1986)
    (citing Blackledge v. Allision, 
    431 U.S. 63
    , 76 (1977)).    By the
    time of this petition, the state trial judge who had accepted
    Cooley's plea, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor were all
    dead.   And the transcript of the 1972 hearing had been destroyed.
    Cooley and his brother, however, testified that the promise had
    been made and was discussed in open court.     The judge's minutes
    clerk, on the other hand, stated that if the court had said Cooley
    would be entitled to release after ten years and six months he
    would have recorded it.    No such statement appears in the record.
    The district court found the clerk's testimony more credible than
    that of the appellant or his brother and dismissed the petition.
    We affirm on the merits rather than on procedural grounds.
    The state may well have suffered prejudice from Cooley's inordinate
    2
    delay in filing his federal habeas petition.    The record suggests,
    however, that the defendant may not have received adequate notice
    of the state's intent to move for dismissal on Rule 9(a) grounds.
    See McDonnell v. Estelle, 
    666 F.2d 246
    , 253 (5th Cir. 1982).      We
    therefore decline to affirm on this ground.    However, the district
    court did not clearly err in finding that appellant failed to carry
    his burden of proof as to the existence of the alleged promise.
    This court defers to the district court when factual determinations
    are based on credibility. Williams v. Fab-Con, Inc., 
    990 F.2d 228
    ,
    239 (5th Cir. 1993).   We therefore affirm on the merits.   Cooley v.
    Whitley, No. 92-CV-2234 A (E.D.La. Mar. 31, 1995).
    AFFIRMED.
    3