Derek Brown v. Warden of Perry Correctional, No. 14-7611 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7611 DEREK J. BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (0:12-cv-02988-TMC) Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: April 7, 2015 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek J. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derek J. Brown, a state inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition raising multiple claims. recommended denying a dismissing the petition. certificate of certificate of The magistrate judge appealability and The district court, however, granted a appealability on one claim, namely, whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge on direct appeal the trial court’s denial of a mistrial based on improper comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument regarding Brown’s decision not to testify. Brown is entitled to habeas relief on a claim adjudicated “on the merits” by a state court only if the state court’s disposition of that claim “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Barnes v. Joyner, 751 F.3d 229, 238 (4th Cir. 2014). Clearly established federal law “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” U.S. 362, 412 (2000). he demonstrates “that Williams v. Taylor, 529 Brown may not obtain habeas relief unless the state 2 court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there existing was law disagreement.” an error well beyond understood any and possibility comprehended for in fairminded Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). Before a federal court grants habeas relief, it must conclude that the constitutional error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Barnes, 751 F.3d at 239 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Factual findings by the state court are presumed correct, and Brown bears the burden to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Tucker v. Ozmint, 350 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2003). In light of this standard, we conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that the state post-conviction court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in determining that the prosecutor’s comments did not so infect the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process and, therefore, appellate counsel was not constitutionally ineffective in failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. the district Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by court. Brown (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2014). v. Warden, No. 0:12-cv-02988-TMC We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 3 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
