DocketNumber: 02-2044
Citation Numbers: 55 F. App'x 392
Filed Date: 1/22/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 02-2044 ___________ Wayne Allen Berry, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Leonard Graves, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: January 15, 2003 Filed: January 22, 2003 ___________ Before LOKEN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Wayne Allen Berry appeals the district court’s* denial of Berry’s28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for habeas relief. Berry claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s alleged references to Berry’s post-arrest silence during closing argument. Having carefully reviewed the record, we believe the district court correctly agreed with the state court’s decision that the prosecutor’s comments did not violate Berry’s right to silence. Three of the prosecutor’s * The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. statements were permissible references to Berry’s pre-arrest silence. Vick v. Lockhart,952 F.2d 999
, 1003 (8th Cir. 1991). The prosecutor’s fourth statement, that Berry had “eighty-eight days . . . in jail . . . to concoct his story and make it look good when he gets up and testifies,” was not an impermissible reference to Berry’s post- arrest silence. Catches v. United States,582 F.2d 453
,458 (8th Cir. 1978). Because the state court reasonably concluded that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s comments was not ineffective assistance, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-