Filed: May 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 95-31064 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS HAROLD RAY WISDOM, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana (CR-95-50012) May 14, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Harold Ray Wisdom argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to respond to the Government’s request for notice of his alib
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 95-31064 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS HAROLD RAY WISDOM, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana (CR-95-50012) May 14, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Harold Ray Wisdom argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to respond to the Government’s request for notice of his alibi..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-31064
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
HAROLD RAY WISDOM,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(CR-95-50012)
May 14, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Harold Ray Wisdom argues that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to respond to the Government’s request for
notice of his alibi witnesses; by failing to call alibi witnesses
at trial, and for failing to request additional jury instructions.
Wisdom’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on
counsel’s failures regarding alibi witnesses was not factually
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
developed in the district court. We therefore decline to address
the merits of the claim on direct appeal, but we do so without
prejudice to Wisdom’s right to raise the issue in a 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion proceeding. See United States v. Andrews,
22 F.3d
1328, 1345 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 346 (1994).
With respect to Wisdom’s argument that counsel was ineffective
in failing to request additional jury instructions, we have
reviewed the record, including the trial transcript and the jury
instructions given by the district court to the jury, and have
determined that Wisdom has failed to demonstrate that his counsel
was ineffective in failing to request the additional instructions
proposed by Wisdom on appeal. See Strickland v. Washington,
466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
2