Nakeith Sparkman v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden ( 2020 )

Case: 18-31281 Document: 00515371453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 18-31281 FILED
April 3, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
NAKEITH SPARKMAN, Clerk
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:17-CV-1416
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Nakeith Sparkman, Louisiana prisoner # 483533, moves for a certificate
of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial and dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 application that challenged his convictions for second-degree
murder, attempted second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and
possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. He also moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and appeals the district court’s denial of his
request for an evidentiary hearing.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 18-31281 Document: 00515371453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-31281
Sparkman maintains that trial evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction for second-degree murder; his trial counsel was ineffective by failing
to contend that the jury-selection process violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.
79 (1986); his appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing on direct appeal
that trial counsel was ineffective in connection with the jury-selection process;
his arrest violated his due process and equal protection rights; and the State
bolstered the credibility of a witness. To the extent that he raised other claims
in his § 2254 application, he has abandoned them by failing to brief them. See
Hughes v. Dretke, 412 F.3d 582, 597 (5th Cir. 2005).
A COA may issue “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). If the district court denies relief on the merits, the
petitioner must establish that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000). If relief is denied on procedural grounds, a COA should issue if the
petitioner demonstrates, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the application “states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. Sparkman has not made the
necessary showing. Accordingly, his motion for a COA is denied.
We treat his motion for a COA regarding the district court’s denial of an
evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue. See Norman v. Stephens,
817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016). He has failed to show that the district court
abused its discretion in denying relief without holding an evidentiary hearing.
See § 2254(d); Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 185-86 (2011); McDonald v.
Johnson, 139 F.3d 1056, 1059-60 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court’s judgment
2
Case: 18-31281 Document: 00515371453 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-31281
should be affirmed as to that issue. See Norman, 817 F.3d at 234. His motion
for leave to proceed IFP is denied.
COA DENIED; IFP MOTION DENIED; AFFIRMED.
3