Coleman v. Quarterman, No. 07-10303 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-10303 Summary Calendar July 18, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk WILLIAM FREDRICK COLEMAN Petitioner-Appellant v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CV-1507 USDC No. 3:06-CV-1508 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* William Fredrick Coleman, Texas prisoner # 1175205, appeals the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for habeas relief, in which Coleman challenged his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. A certificate of appealability (COA) was granted as to whether Coleman s guilty * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-10303 plea was voluntary. This court also directed the parties to address whether Coleman s application was time barred. Coleman devotes his entire appellate brief to the time bar issue and merely concludes in his reply brief that his plea was involuntary and refers this court to arguments he raised in previous district court pleadings. Even if Coleman has not waived review of this issue, see Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), he has failed to demonstrate that his guilty plea was involuntary and that the district court erred in denying him habeas relief based on the merits of this claim. Resolution of the remaining question specified in the grant of the COA regarding the timeliness of Coleman s § 2254 application is therefore unnecessary. See Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.