USA v. Robert John Jackaway

00-1712United States Court Of Appeals For The 8th CircuitMar 30, 2001

Full text

1The Hon. Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota, sitting by designation.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
____________
No. 00-2640EM
____________
Timothy Dickerson, *
*
Appellant, * On Appeal from the United
* States District Court
v. * for the Eastern District
* of Missouri
*
Dave Dormire, * [Not To Be Published.]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: March 12, 2001
Filed: March 20, 2001
___________
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
Judges, and MONTGOMERY,1 District Judge.
___________
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, brought by a
prisoner in the custody of the State of Missouri. The petitioner claims that he is being
deprived of his liberty without due process of law because of the failure of the state

-- 1 of 2 --

2The Hon. Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-
trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary
manslaughter. The District Court2 denied relief, and we affirm.
We have little to add to the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court. It is
sufficient to say that this Court has consistently held that "the failure to give a lesser
included offense instruction in a noncapital case rarely, if ever, presents a constitutional
question." Pitts v. Lockhart, 911 F.2d 109, 112 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S.
1253 (1991). Under current law, in order to grant federal habeas relief, we would have
to say that the state courts' action in this case was contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Supreme Court has never held that
due process requires the giving of lesser-included-offense instructions in noncapital
cases. Accordingly, relief must be denied in the present case.
The judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.