From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Branan v. Booth

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Dec 20, 1988
861 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1988)

Summary

holding that a "habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief," even "when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is couched in terms of equal protection and due process"

Summary of this case from Daker v. Sapp

Opinion

No. 88-3052. Non-Argument Calendar.

December 20, 1988.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HILL, FAY and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.


Petitioner-appellant, Michael R. Branan, a Florida prisoner, seeks review of the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his petition for writ of habeas corpus ( 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Branan was convicted of sexual battery with slight force and sentenced to 15 years in prison by a Palm Beach County Circuit Court in 1984. After exhausting state remedies, Branan filed the instant petition for habeas relief. In his petition, Branan alleges that he was denied due process and equal protection because the trial judge relied on invalid reasons in departing from the Florida sentencing guidelines (Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701) and increasing Branan's sentence from the recommended 12-30 months to 15 years. The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice, finding the issue to be one of state law and, thus, not cognizable in a federal habeas action. We affirm.

The applicable statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), provides:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

It is clear from the foregoing statute that a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief. Carrizales v. Wainwright, 699 F.2d 1053, 1054-55 (11th Cir. 1983). In the area of state sentencing guidelines in particular, we consistently have held that federal courts can not review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures. Jones v. Estelle, 622 F.2d 124, 126 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 996, 101 S.Ct. 537, 66 L.Ed.2d 295 (1980); Nichols v. Estelle, 556 F.2d 1330, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1020, 98 S.Ct. 744, 54 L.Ed.2d 767 (1978); Willeford v. Estelle, 538 F.2d 1194, 1196-98 (5th Cir. 1976). This limitation on federal habeas review is of equal force when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is "couched in terms of equal protection and due process." Willeford, 538 F.2d at 1198.

In the instant case, petitioner argues that the trial judge misinterpreted Florida law regarding departure from recommended guidelines for sentencing. He cites numerous Florida cases and argues that, if the trial judge had correctly interpreted Florida case law and the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, petitioner would have been given a shorter sentence. As a result of these alleged violations of state law, petitioner argues, he is being denied due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

It is our opinion that the petition raises issues of state law only and, thus, must be dismissed. Although petitioner alleges violations of federal law, it is clear that this petition is based exclusively on state law issues which are merely "couched in terms of equal protection and due process." Willeford, 538 F.2d at 1198. Were this Court to undertake a review of the instant petition, we would have to conduct an examination of Florida case law and of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. This we will not and can not do.

Like the district court, we express no opinion on the trial court's interpretation of Florida law.

Because the instant petition raises only questions of state law and because we are bound by our prior decisions, we hereby AFFIRM the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the petitioner's writ of habeas corpus.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Branan v. Booth

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Dec 20, 1988
861 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1988)

holding that a "habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief," even "when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is couched in terms of equal protection and due process"

Summary of this case from Daker v. Sapp

holding "that a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief" and noting that "[a]lthough petitioner alleges violations of federal law, it is clear that [his] petition is based exclusively on state law issues which are merely couched in terms of equal protection and due process"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Warden

holding that federal courts cannot review a state court's alleged failure to adhere to the state's sentencing provisions

Summary of this case from Moore v. Jones

holding that misapplication of state sentencing guidelines not cognizable on habeas review

Summary of this case from Aurich v. Rapelje

holding that "habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief," even "when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is couched in terms of equal protection and due process"

Summary of this case from Kitt v. Cohen

holding that petitioner's argument that trial judge misinterpreted state law regarding departure from recommended guidelines for sentencing was denial of his due process raised only a state law issue and was not cognizable in federal habeas action

Summary of this case from Cutaia v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

holding that a state court's error in applying its own sentencing provisions is not cognizable on federal habeas review, even when the claim is "couched in terms of equal protection and due process."

Summary of this case from Brinkley v. Hinkle

holding that "federal courts cannot review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures"

Summary of this case from Holman v. Renico

holding that "federal courts cannot review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures"

Summary of this case from Koras v. Robinson

holding that, "federal courts can not review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures."

Summary of this case from Draughn v. Jabe

concluding that federal habeas courts cannot review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its sentencing procedures even when petitioner's claim "is couched in terms of equal protection and due process."

Summary of this case from Hackley v. Clarke

denying petition as having only raised issues of state law, finding that "[a]lthough petitioner alleges violations of federal law, it is clear that his petition is based exclusively on state law issues which are merely 'couched in terms of equal protection and due process.'"

Summary of this case from Medina v. Sec'y

affirming the dismissal of a state law claim as not cognizable in a federal habeas action and stating that "a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief."

Summary of this case from Nevels v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

affirming dismissal of § 2254 petition as it raised only issues of state law: "This limitation on federal habeas review is of equal force when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is 'couched in terms of equal protection and due process.'" (quoting Willeford v. Estelle, 538 F.2d 1194, 1198 (5th Cir. 1976))

Summary of this case from Marts v. Inch

affirming the dismissal of a state law claim as not cognizable in a federal habeas action and stating that "a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief."

Summary of this case from Turbi v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

affirming the dismissal of a state law claim as not cognizable in a federal habeas action and stating that "a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief."

Summary of this case from Paul v. Sec'y

explaining that a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for federal habeas relief

Summary of this case from Carruth v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.

explaining that "a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief" even when "couched" in terms of federal constitutional violations

Summary of this case from Tuomi v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

explaining that habeas petitions based on issues of state law do not provide a basis for relief and that "[i]n the area of state sentencing guidelines in particular, we consistently have held that federal courts cannot review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures"

Summary of this case from Graber v. Secretary

declining to review state law claims that are merely "couched in terms of equal protection and due process"

Summary of this case from Washington v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

noting that issues of state law do not provide a basis for federal habeas relief and stating that "[i]n the area of state sentencing guidelines in particular, we consistently have held that federal courts can not review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures"

Summary of this case from Khianthalat v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

explaining that habeas petitions based on issues of state law do not provide a basis for relief and that "[i]n the area of state sentencing guidelines in particular, we consistently have held that federal courts cannot review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures."

Summary of this case from Allen v. Sec'y

sentencing guidelines

Summary of this case from Obando v. Jones

sentencing guidelines context

Summary of this case from Obando v. Jones

explaining that habeas petitions based on issues of state law do not provide a basis for relief and that "[i]n the area of state sentencing guidelines in particular, we consistently have held that federal courts cannot review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures"

Summary of this case from Williams v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
Case details for

Branan v. Booth

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL R. BRANAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM E. BOOTH, AND ROBERT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Dec 20, 1988

Citations

861 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1988)

Citing Cases

Payne v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

Therefore, a claim that does not raise a federal issue is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Branan…

Paul v. Sec'y

Accordingly, a claim that does not allege a federal constitutional violation is not cognizable in a federal…