Taylor v. Anderson
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. § 2254petition 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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- Unpublished