Ward v. Cain ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30535
Summary Calendar
LOUIS WARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(01-CV-1851-K)
December 5, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pursuant to a Certificate of Appealability granted by the
district court, Louis Ward, Louisiana prisoner # 96511, appeals,
pro se, the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition seeking
relief from his conviction for purse snatching (more than $100) and
resulting life sentence because of prior offenses. Ward’s claims
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
are reviewed under the deferential standard of the Anti-terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
Ward first contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction. He must establish that no “rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt”. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979); see also Schrader v. Whitley, 904 F.2d 282, 284 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 903 (1990); State v. Anderson, 418 So. 2d
551, 552 (La. 1982).
Ward also contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by not requesting that the jury be instructed on the
lesser included offense of theft. Even if Ward shows counsel’s
performance was deficient for not doing so, Ward must establish
prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-94
(1984). He must show that counsel’s failure “render[ed] the result
of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair”.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 372 (1993).
Reviewed under the deferential AEDPA standard, Ward has not
established that the state courts’ denial of relief on these claims
constituted an “unreasonable application of[] clearly established
federal law”. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
362, 411-12 (2000). Consequently, the denial of habeas relief is
AFFIRMED.