Filed: Jun. 21, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30075 Summary Calendar MICHAEL FRANCOIS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (No. 99-CV-1929) June 20, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Michael Francois, Louisiana inmate #116645, appeals, pro se, the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. For the
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-30075 Summary Calendar MICHAEL FRANCOIS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (No. 99-CV-1929) June 20, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Michael Francois, Louisiana inmate #116645, appeals, pro se, the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. For the ..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30075
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL FRANCOIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden,
Louisiana State Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(No. 99-CV-1929)
June 20, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Francois, Louisiana inmate #116645, appeals, pro se,
the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. For the several
issues presented, the district court granted a certificate of
appealability (COA) on whether Francois voluntarily waived the
right to testify at trial. Francois has not requested that we
broaden that COA. Thus, we do not consider the issues that
Francois has briefed but that are beyond the scope of the issue
upon which a COA was granted. See Ott v. Johnson,
192 F.3d 510,
512 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied,
529 U.S. 1099 (2000).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Francois contends that he informed trial counsel that he
wished to testify but that counsel denied him the right to do so.
Francois contends also that the state habeas trial court did not
make the necessary inquiry to determine whether he voluntarily and
intelligently waived the right to testify.
Francois has not established that the state habeas court’s
decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts
in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding”.
Moore v. Johnson,
225 F.3d 495, 501 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)), cert. denied,
121 S. Ct. 1420 (2001).
AFFIRMED
2