Hines v. Lensing ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30349
Summary Calendar
JEROME B. HINES, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
C. MARTIN LENSING, Warden,
Hunt Correctional Center,
Respondent-Appellee.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CV-2618-I
---------------------
February 7, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal from the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254habeas corpus petition, the district court has granted Jerome B.
Hines, Jr., a Louisiana prisoner (# 81727), a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) with respect to the issue whether the trial
court sentenced him vindictively for his having exercised his right
to stand trial and whether his counsel performed ineffectively by
failing to raise this issue on direct appeal.
Although the trial judge stated that one of the reasons
for Hines’ sentence was his “audacity to challenge the facts of
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
this case . . . which the court found incredible from the
beginning,” the Louisiana Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the
trial judge’s full statement of reasons referred to Hines’ lack of
remorse was not objectively unreasonable, and its decision thus did
not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established law.
See Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1521 (2000); United States
v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1338 (5th Cir. 1991) (defendant may not
be punished for simply exercising his right to stand trial); 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Hines urges this court to broaden his COA to certify his
claims that: (1) his multiple-bill sentencing was invalid because
one of the prior guilty pleas on which it was based had been
involuntarily entered; (2) counsel performed ineffectively by
failing to object to improper closing arguments by the prosecution;
and (3) counsel performed ineffectively by failing to conduct a
thorough pretrial investigation. See United States v. Kimler, 150
F.3d 429, 431 (5th cir. 1998) (§ 2255 case). Hines has not,
however, made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right as to these claims. Accordingly, his request
that this court broaden the district court’s order granting COA is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BROADEN COA DENIED.
2