Danny Lockett v. United States, No. 09-1461 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Habeas Case - evidentiary hearing. On remand, district court did not err in relying on record documents to support findings of fact and did not clearly err in its relevant findings of fact.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-1461 ___________ Danny Lockett, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 25, 2009 Filed: October 8, 2009 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Danny Lockett appeals the district court s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 motion following this court s remand for further proceedings, see United States v. Lockett, 303 Fed. Appx. 373, 374 (8th Cir. 2008) (unpublished per curiam). After denying Lockett relief, the district court granted him a certificate of appealability on his claim that his trial counsel had been ineffective during plea negotiations. Following our careful review of the record, the briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court did not err in relying on record documents to support 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. its findings of fact, see Chandler v. United States, 378 F.2d 906, 909-10 (9th Cir. 1967) (district court can take judicial notice of its own records, even if court records are not actually brought before judge who is asked to take such judicial notice), and we further conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its relevant findings of fact, see United States v. Robinson, 301 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2002) (claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact; this court reviews district court s legal determination de novo, and its underlying findings of fact for clear error). Accordingly, we find no basis for reversing the district court s denial of Lockett s section 2255 motion, and we affirm. 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.
