Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Malvin Wayne Hoggard, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Al C. Parke, Warden, Respondent-Appellee., 954 F.2d 724 (6th Cir. 1992)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (February 11, 1992)

Docket number: 91-5924
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/37423107
Id. vLex: VLEX-37423107

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

Before KENNEDY and NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judges, and JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Malvin Wayne Hoggard, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appeals the district court's judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Additionally, Hoggard requests the appointment of counsel and a transcript at government expense. Hoggard has also filed a motion for miscellaneous relief. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

In 1986, a Henderson County, Kentucky, jury convicted Hoggard of first-degree robbery and of being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the first-degree. He was sentenced to ten years for the robbery, which was enhanced to twenty years after his PFO conviction. Hoggard's conviction was affirmed on appeal.

After exhausting state post-conviction remedies, Hoggard filed the instant petition for habeas corpus relief claiming: 1) he was denied full and fair appellate review due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; 2) he was denied due process of law when the trial court denied his continuance and motions for a new trial; and 3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to conduct a proper and adequate investigation of his case. A magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation that rejected these claims and recommended denial of the petition. Despite Hoggard's timely objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and entered judgment accordingly.

Upon review, we affirm the district court's judgment because Hoggard has not shown he was denied a fundamentally fair trial. See Lundy v. Campbell, 888 F.2d 467, 469-70 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 2212 (1990).

Accordingly, the requests for appointment of counsel and for a transcript at government expense are denied and the district court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The motion for miscellaneous relief is denied as moot.

Other documents:
Madeline v Smith Appellant v United States of America Appellee. 239 F.2d 168 6th Cir 1956 | 42 cfr 1004.50 meeting with a practitioner or other person. | roberts v louisiana 431 u.s 633 < i> per curiam < /i> 1977 | Acuerdo del Consejo de Dirección del Fondo de Garantía Agraria y Pesquera de las Illes Balears (F... | RESOLUCIÓ de 12 de gener de 1993 per la qual es modifica la Resolució de 28 d agost de 1989 de revisió del co... | Collective Agreement of Ayuntamiento de Santpedor personal funcionario, Barcelona | Archivo del asunto C-64/99 | Dos referentes para una carretera