Taylor v. Anderson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Taylor v. Anderson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60387 Summary Calendar

C.W. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES V. ANDERSON, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary; WALTER BOOKER; MIKE MOORE, Attorney General, State of Mississippi,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:98-CV-705-LN -------------------- January 22, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

C.W. Taylor (Mississippi prisoner # 31836) appeals the

district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition wherein he

challenged his state-court conviction for capital murder. Taylor

argues that, in rejecting his claim that he was denied his

constitutional right to a speedy trial, the Mississippi Supreme

Court erred by deducting 360 days of plea bargaining from the

overall length of the delay. He argues both that the state record

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 00-60387 -2-

did not support such a finding and that plea negotiations should

not toll the speedy-trial clock.

We review Taylor’s claims under the deferential standard of

review provided in the AEDPA. See § 2254(d). A federal court must

defer to a state court’s resolution of both pure question of law

and mixed questions of law and fact unless the state court’s

determined was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application” of

clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

Id. An applicant may also warrant habeas relief regarding a claim

that was adjudicated on the merits in state court if the claim

“resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in

the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d)(2).

Taylor has made no such showing. Accordingly, the district

court’s denial of his § 2254 petition is AFFIRMED.

Reference

Status
Unpublished