Guy White Horse v. United States, No. 05-2533 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - habeas. Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rejected; Booker does not apply to final criminal judgment on collateral review.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2533 ___________ Guy Randy White Horse, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 22, 2006 Filed: December 27, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Guy Randy White Horse appeals the district court s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sexual-abuse conviction. Having received a certificate of appealability from the district court, he raises issues related to ineffective assistance of counsel and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Upon de novo review, we conclude that White Horse s ineffective-assistance claim fails because it is not reasonably probable that, but for his counsel s alleged 1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. errors, the result of his criminal proceedings would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-94 (1984) (ineffective-assistance claim requires showing that (1) counsel s performance was objectively deficient and (2) deficient performance prejudiced defense, meaning there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different ); Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court s denial of § 2255 relief is reviewed de novo). We further conclude that White Horse s Booker claim is unavailing. See Never Misses A Shot v. United States, 413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (rule announced in Booker does not apply to final criminal judgments on collateral review). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
