Filed: Feb. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 94-3732 _ Willie Houston, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Larry Norris, Acting Director, * Eastern District of Arkansas. Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] Correction, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: January 7, 1996 Filed: February 13, 1996 _ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In 1988, a jury found Willie Houston guilty of first degree murder. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, Houston v. State, 77
Summary: _ No. 94-3732 _ Willie Houston, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Larry Norris, Acting Director, * Eastern District of Arkansas. Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] Correction, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: January 7, 1996 Filed: February 13, 1996 _ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In 1988, a jury found Willie Houston guilty of first degree murder. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, Houston v. State, 771..
More
___________
No. 94-3732
___________
Willie Houston, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Larry Norris, Acting Director, * Eastern District of Arkansas.
Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]
Correction, *
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: January 7, 1996
Filed: February 13, 1996
___________
Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
In 1988, a jury found Willie Houston guilty of first degree
murder. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed his conviction,
Houston v. State, 771 S.W.2d 16 (Ark. 1989), and denied
postconviction relief, Houston v. State, No. CR 88-194 (Ark. Dec.
10, 1990) (unpublished per curiam). In 1992, Houston filed this
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, asserting that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict at the close
of the case and to object to jury instructions; the trial court
should have granted his motion to suppress evidence allegedly
seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and his conviction was
based on insufficient evidence. The district court1 dismissed the
1
The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W.
Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
petition, and Houston appeals.
We conclude the district court correctly determined Houston's
ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally barred, and Houston
did not establish cause and prejudice to excuse his default. See
Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 884-85 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 355 (1994); Smith v. Murray,
477 U.S. 527, 535-36
(1986); Johnson v. Lockhart,
944 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1991).
The district court also properly rejected Houston's Fourth
Amendment claim, see Stone v. Powell,
428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976);
Willett v. Lockhart,
37 F.3d 1265, 1268-69 (8th Cir. 1994) (en
banc), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 1432 (1995), as well as his
sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, see Becker v. Lockhart,
971 F.2d
172, 175 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
114 S. Ct. 98 (1993); Ark.
Code Ann. §§ 5-10-102(a)(2), 5-2-202(1); Furr v. State,
822 S.W.2d
380, 381 (Ark. 1992).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
of Arkansas.
-2-
