Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Bufford Lenell McDonald v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent

Bufford Lenell McDonald v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Corr., Respondent, 564 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1977)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1977-12-08
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: In the district court the petitioner was granted federal habeas corpus relief from a sodomy conviction in the State of Texas. The basis for relief stemmed from the state’s use of a prior uncounseled conviction against the petitioner at the punishment stage of his bifurcated trial. This prejudicial evidence was not objected to by petitioner’s trial counsel as required by the Texas contemporaneous objection rule. We affirmed that grant of relief on the basis of the district court’s opinion. McDonald v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bufford Lenell McDonald v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
McDONALD v. ESTELLE,564 F.2d 199(5th Cir. 1977)
BUFFORD LENELL McDONALD, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, v. W. J. ESTELLE, JR.,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
No. 76-1576.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 8, 1977.
John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Patrick P. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Kendall, Jr., First Asst. Atty. Gen., Joe B. Dibrell, Chief, Enforcement Div., Asst. Atty. Gen., Max P. Flusche, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellant.

James D. Durham, Jr., Amarillo, Tex., (court-appointed) for petitioner-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Halbert O. Woodward, Judge.
Before THORNBERRY, CLARK and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] In the district court the petitioner was granted federal habeas corpus relief from a sodomy conviction in the State of Texas. The basis for relief stemmed from the state's use of a prior uncounseled conviction against the petitioner at the punishment stage of his bifurcated trial. This prejudicial evidence was not objected to by petitioner's trial counsel as required by the Texas contemporaneous objection rule. We affirmed that grant of relief on the basis of the district court's opinion.McDonald v.Estelle,536 F.2d 667(5th Cir. 1976). ThePage 200respondent then sought certiorari review of our judgment in the Supreme Court. The Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of its intervening decision inWainwright v. Sykes,433 U.S. 72,97 S.Ct. 2497,53 L.Ed.2d 594(1977).Estelle v. McDonald,___ U.S. ___,97 S.Ct. 2967,53 L.Ed.2d 1088(1977).

[2] UnderSykes,petitioner is precluded from obtaining federal habeas relief due to his procedural default unless he can establish cause for failing to object and that his trial was prejudiced by the introduction of the prior uncounseled conviction evidence. Inasmuch as we have already determined that this evidence was prejudicial, we remand this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of providing petitioner the opportunity to demonstrate cause for his noncompliance with the Texas contemporaneous objection rule.See Jiminez v.Estelle,557 F.2d 506(5th Cir. 1977). Absent such a showing, petitioner will not be entitled to relief.

[3] REMANDED.Page 413
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.;see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩