Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    William Bartholomew Prechtl, III v. Stanley R. Witkowski, Warden, Perry Correctional Institute Attorney General of North Carolina, 79 F.3d 1141, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which William Prechtl appealed a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that only the claims raised in Prechtl's direct appeal and post-conviction relief application could be considered. The appeals court rejected Prechtl's arguments that other defaulted claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence could overcome the procedural default. The court also dismissed Prechtl's argument that an intervening change in law regarding a jury instruction was grounds for review. Ultimately, the appeals court dismissed the appeal and denied a certificate of probable cause, agreeing with the district court's handling of the five claims that were properly raised.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    William Bartholomew Prechtl, III v. Stanley R. Witkowski, Warden, Perry Correctional Institute Attorney General of North Carolina, 79 F.3d 1141, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    56 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which William Prechtl appealed a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that only the claims raised in Prechtl's direct appeal and post-conviction relief application could be considered. The appeals court rejected Prechtl's arguments that other defaulted claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence could overcome the procedural default. The court also dismissed Prechtl's argument that an intervening change in law regarding a jury instruction was grounds for review. Ultimately, the appeals court dismissed the appeal and denied a certificate of probable cause, agreeing with the district court's handling of the five claims that were properly raised.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-03-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 79 F.3d 1141 Docket: 95-7688

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case in which William Prechtl appealed a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that only the claims raised in Prechtl's direct appeal and post-conviction relief application could be considered. The appeals court rejected Prechtl's arguments that other defaulted claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence could overcome the procedural default. The court also dismissed Prechtl's argument that an intervening change in law regarding a jury instruction was grounds for review. Ultimately, the appeals court dismissed the appeal and denied a certificate of probable cause, agreeing with the district court's handling of the five claims that were properly raised.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    56 views2 pages

    William Bartholomew Prechtl, III v. Stanley R. Witkowski, Warden, Perry Correctional Institute Attorney General of North Carolina, 79 F.3d 1141, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which William Prechtl appealed a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that only the claims raised in Prechtl's direct appeal and post-conviction relief application could be considered. The appeals court rejected Prechtl's arguments that other defaulted claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence could overcome the procedural default. The court also dismissed Prechtl's argument that an intervening change in law regarding a jury instruction was grounds for review. Ultimately, the appeals court dismissed the appeal and denied a certificate of probable cause, agreeing with the district court's handling of the five claims that were properly raised.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    79 F.

    3d 1141

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    William Bartholomew PRECHTL, III, Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    Stanley R. WITKOWSKI, Warden, Perry Correctional
    Institute;
    Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 95-7688.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: March 5, 1996.
    Decided: March 19, 1996.

    William Bartholomew Prechtl, III, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John


    Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    William B. Prechtl appeals from the district court's order granting summary
    judgment for the Respondents on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1988) petition. Prechtl
    raised fifty claims in his petition. We have reviewed the district court's opinion
    adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no error with its
    determination that only the claims raised before the South Carolina Supreme
    Court in Prechtl's direct appeal from his criminal conviction or in his petition to
    appeal the denial of his post-conviction relief application may be addressed by
    the federal courts. We therefore affirm the dismissal of all other claims on the
    reasoning of the district court. Prechtl v. Witkowski, No. CA-95-150-2-17AJ
    (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 1995).

    Prechtl concedes that some of his claims may be barred by procedural default,

    Prechtl concedes that some of his claims may be barred by procedural default,
    but contends that they should be reviewed anyway for three reasons: (1) his
    attorney's failure to present witnesses at his post-conviction relief hearing
    constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, thus resulting in both cause and
    prejudice; (2) he is actually innocent; and (3) there was an intervening change
    in the law regarding one claim. Our review reveals no error in the district
    court's disposal of Prechtl's first two explanations. Therefore we dismiss these
    two allegations as methods to attack procedurally defaulted claims on the
    reasoning of the district court. Prechtl v. Witkowski, No. CA-95-150-2-17AJ
    (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 1995).

    Prechtl's third attempt to obtain federal review centers around a jury instruction
    that "malice may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon." Prechtl
    contends that an intervening change in the law rendered this instruction
    constitutionally infirm. We find, however, that the rule upon which Prechtl
    relies to demonstrate constitutional infirmity existed before the trial court
    charged the jury. Accordingly, there was no intervening change in the law and
    we dismiss this claim as meritless.

    Having decided that Prechtl has no avenues through which to litigate


    procedurally defaulted claims in federal court, we turn to the five claims raised
    in his direct appeal and petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of South
    Carolina. Our review of the district court's opinion accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge reveals no reversible error in the grant
    of summary judgment for the Respondents on these claims. Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the
    reasoning of the district court. Prechtl v. Witkowski, No. CA-95-150-2-17AJ
    (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like