Carlisle v. Lopinto ( 2022 )

Case: 20-30720 Document: 00516339973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-30720 June 1, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Taylor Carlisle,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Joseph P. Lopinto, III, Sheriff and Administrator of Jefferson Parish
Correctional Center, State of Louisiana,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:16-CV-838
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Taylor Carlisle appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application
that challenged his state-court judgment and six-month sentence for
contempt. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30720 Document: 00516339973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
No. 20-30720
its conclusions of law de novo. Martinez v. Johnson, 255 F.3d 229, 237 (5th
Cir. 2001). We are also guided by the deferential standard owed a state
court’s adjudication of a petitioner’s federal claims. Id. at 242–43; see 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d). Finding no error by the district court, we AFFIRM.
First, Carlisle’s contention that the contempt judgment exceeded the
drug court’s statutory authority pleads a violation only of state law and fails
to state a cognizable basis for Section 2254 relief. See Beazley v. Johnson, 242
F.3d 248, 261 (5th Cir. 2001); § 2254(a). Carlisle does not otherwise show
that his contempt judgment violated his due process rights to notice and a
hearing. See Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537 (1925). Furthermore,
while Carlisle focuses on the drug court’s finding that he failed to appear, the
court’s contempt judgment was based on Carlisle’s misrepresentations and
his prior history of sanctions.
Second, we consider that Carlisle may be asserting more than a
violation of state law by arguing that he was denied due process in relation to
his appeal of his contempt judgment because the drug court proceedings were
not transcribed. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67–68. Even if that is a federal claim,
he fails to show that the lack of a drug court transcript rendered his state court
proceedings fundamentally unfair and thus deprived him of due process. See
Manning v. Warden, La. State Penitentiary, 786 F.2d 710, 711–12 (5th Cir.
1986). Carlisle makes no showing that the absence of a transcript rendered
the state courts’ review of his contempt judgment — based, in part, on the
drug court’s two detailed opinions — inadequate or ineffective, nor does he
suggest what additional relevant information a transcript would have
provided. “[C]laims based on incomplete transcripts must show that the
absence of such a transcript prejudiced [the defendant’s] appeal.”
Higginbotham v. Louisiana, 817 F.3d 217, 222 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
2
Case: 20-30720 Document: 00516339973 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
No. 20-30720
Third, Carlisle argues that his contempt sentence was excessive under
state law. The argument fails, because “it is not the province of a federal
habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law
questions.” Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67–68. His only citation to clearly established
Supreme Court law is to an irrelevant opinion. Superintendent, Massachusetts
Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985).
Fourth, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Section 2254 relief without an evidentiary hearing. See Blue v. Thaler, 665
F.3d 647, 655 (5th Cir. 2011). Even if Carlisle were not barred from receiving
a federal evidentiary hearing under Section 2254(e)(2), he fails to show that
the state courts “did not provide him with a full and fair hearing” on his
federal claims simply because there was no verbatim transcript of the drug
court contempt hearing. See id. He neither shows how the record before the
state courts was actually insufficient to adjudicate his claims nor, as noted,
suggests what additional information a transcript would have provided.
Finally, there was no error in the district court’s rejection of Carlisle’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Both the contempt finding and related six-month
sentence were within the state court’s lawful authority and based on facts
that Carlisle does not dispute. Reasonable counsel could have concluded that
an objection to either would have been futile. See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d
524, 528 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
3