Collins v. Anderson
Collins v. Anderson
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60594 Summary Calendar
KEVIN COLLINS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JAMES V. ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:97-CV-177-WS -------------------- February 5, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kevin Collins, Mississippi prisoner # 43913, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. A
certificate of appealability was granted on the issue whether
Collins received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
attorney purportedly refused to allow him to testify at trial.
To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a
petitioner must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and
that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 99-60594 -2-
Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687(1984). A petitioner must prove
both deficient performance and prejudice, and a failure to
establish either deficient performance or prejudice defeats the
claim.
Id. at 697.
To prove deficient performance, the petitioner must show
that counsel’s actions fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Strickland.
466 U.S. at 687. To prove
prejudice, the petitioner must show that counsel’s deficient
performance rendered the proceeding unreliable or fundamentally
unfair. Lockhart v. Fretwell,
506 U.S. 364, 372(1993).
Collins’ bare assertion that he wanted to testify, but was
prevented from doing so by counsel, is not enough to demonstrate
either deficient performance or prejudice. See Lincecum v.
Collins,
958 F.2d 1271, 1279-80(5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly,
since he has failed to demonstrate either deficient performance
or prejudice under Strickland, the district court’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished