Rudy Francis v. Donnie Bordelon, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana reviewed de novo a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging Rudy Francis’s Louisiana manslaughter conviction and sentence. The court overruled Francis’s objections, approved and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and rejected his claims concerning insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and excessive sentence.

Holdings

1. Francis's prosecutorial-misconduct claim was unexhausted because he argued in state court only that the State failed to file or timely file a firearm sentencing-enhancement motion, whereas his federal claim asserted that the State deceived the trial court by claiming to have filed the motion.
2. Francis's challenge to his twenty-year sentence was unexhausted because the state courts had not reviewed that sentence when he filed his federal habeas petition, and Francis failed to establish that the state corrective process was unavailable or ineffective.
3. Francis was not entitled to habeas relief on his insufficient-evidence claim because a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed manslaughter and did not act in self-defense, and the state courts' rejection of the claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
4. Francis failed to establish prosecutorial misconduct because the last reasoned state-court decision found that the State filed and served the firearm sentencing-enhancement motion before trial, and Francis did not rebut that factual determination by clear and convincing evidence.
5. Francis's twenty-year sentence for manslaughter was not unconstitutionally excessive because it fell within the statutory maximum and was not grossly disproportionate to the offense or wholly devoid of sentencing discretion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Francis exhausted his federal prosecutorial-misconduct claim when the alleged deception concerning the firearm sentencing enhancement was not presented to the state courts.
2. Whether Francis exhausted his excessive-sentence claim concerning the twenty-year sentence imposed on resentencing.
3. Whether the state courts' rejection of Francis's insufficient-evidence claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
4. Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by allegedly representing that it had filed a firearm sentencing-enhancement motion.
5. Whether Francis's twenty-year manslaughter sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

Disposition

dismissed