CURTIS ECHOLS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
A.G. THOMAS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
PER CURIAM: Curtis Lee Echols, Jr., a Georgia prisoner, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denying his petition for habe-as corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Echols contends that the life sentences imposed upon him in state court were not authorized by state law and that his court-appointed attorney was ineffective for failing to so advise him or to challenge their imposition. Because Echols’ attacks on his sentences turned on an unanswered question of Georgia law, we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia: WERE THE LIFE SENTENCES IMPOSED BY THE DOUGLAS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AUTHORIZED BY THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE AT THE TIME OF ECHOLS’ SENTENCING? Echols v. Thomas, 33 F. 3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir.1994).
The Georgia Supreme Court has now answered that question in the affirmative. Echols v. Thomas, 265 Ga. 474, 458 S.E. 2d 100 (1995).
In view of the.holding of the state’s highest court that Echols was legally subject to the life sentences exacted in the trial court, the district court properly denied relief both on his statutory claim and his assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED. . Our earlier opinion contains a more detailed statement of the relevant facts and proceedings, which need not be repeated here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Neil A. Fisher, M.D., 965 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…nlikely to prevail on the merits of his action. To prevail on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that there was a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. See, e.g., Skinner v. City of Miami, 62 F. 3d 344, 347-48 (11th Cir.1995). A difference of opinion between Smith and a prison medical staff member as to treatment for Smith’s itching skin condition does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation. See also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107, 97…
-
DOE v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)…rp., 368 F. 3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir.2004). In order to succeed on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the Appellants must show, among other things, that there was a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. See Skinner v. City of Miami, 62 F. 3d 344, 347-48 (11th Cir.1995). Here, they argue that the complaint states a sufficient § 1983 claim that the Sex Offender Act violates their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, travel and separation of powers, and that the DNA Statute…
-
Dacosta v. Stanislaus Nwachukwa, 304 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 2002)…, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our substantive due process doctrine is designed to “protect[ ] those rights that are fundamental — rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Skinner v. City of Miami, 62 F. 3d 344, 347 (11th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). The substantive element of the Due Process Clause protects certain rights not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, from state infringemen…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Echols v. A.G. Thomas, 33 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 1994)