James L. Scott v. Joseph P. Class ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                               United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 96-1937
    ___________
    James L. Scott, a/k/a                         *
    James L. Smith,                               *
    *
    Appellant,                     *
    *
    v.                                     * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Joseph Class,                                 * District of South Dakota.
    *
    Appellee.                      *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 12, 1997
    Filed: May 30, 1997
    ___________
    Before MAGILL,1 MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,2 Judge.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    1
    The Honorable Frank J. Magill, was an active judge at the time that this case was submitted
    and assumed senior status on April 1, 1997, before the opinion was filed.
    2
    The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade,
    sitting by designation.
    James L. Scott appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for
    habeas corpus. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
    Scott is not entitled to relief. The record demonstrates that Scott procedurally defaulted
    on his claim of insufficiency of the evidence and his claim of violation of due process
    due to the trial court’s denial of his motion for severance. He defaulted on these claims
    because he failed to raise them in his state court post-conviction proceedings. Coleman
    v. Thompson, 
    501 U.S. 722
    , 750 (1991). Furthermore, with respect to Scott’s various
    other due process claims, the record demonstrates that the district court correctly ruled
    that Scott was not denied due process of law in his jury trial. Finally, we find that the
    district court correctly determined that Scott is barred from raising his probable cause
    claim in a federal habeas corpus proceeding under Stone v. Powell, 
    428 U.S. 465
    (1976). Because an extensive discussion of Scott’s fact-specific arguments is not
    warranted, we affirm the district court without a comprehensive opinion. See 8th Cir.
    R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1937

Filed Date: 5/30/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021