Eddie Williams v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden

Case: 14-31067 Document: 00513691908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-31067 FILED
Summary Calendar September 26, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
EDDIE WILLIAMS,
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. 2:12-CV-1112
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Eddie Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 303316, was convicted of the
aggravated rape of a juvenile, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The
district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition but granted a certificate of
appealability on one issue: whether Williams was denied his right to confront
his accuser when the trial court admitted DNA evidence based on the
testimony of a supervisor at the laboratory that performed the DNA testing.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-31067 Document: 00513691908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2016
No. 14-31067
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal
conclusions de novo. Hatten v. Quarterman, 570 F.3d 595, 599-600 (5th Cir.
2009).
We agree with the Respondent that Williams has not exhausted his state
remedies as required by § 2254(b) and (c) as to the stand-alone Confrontation
Clause claim recognized by the district court. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S.
27, 29 (2004); Smith v. Quarterman, 515 F.3d 392, 402 (5th Cir. 2008).
However, even if Williams had exhausted his state remedies for this claim, his
claim fails on the merits. See § 2254(b)(2). Here, the supervisor of the DNA
laboratory testified as an expert who had a personal connection to the scientific
testing and actively reviewed the results of the forensic analyst’s testing and
signed off on the report. The supervisor thus was able to testify to the results
without violating the confrontation rights of Williams. Cf. Bullcoming v. New
Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 652, 655 (2011).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
Respondent’s motion for leave to file a surreply brief is GRANTED.
2