Grace v. Louisiana State Penitentiary

Justia Dockets & Filings Fifth Circuit Louisiana Western District Grace v. Louisiana State Penitentiary

Grace v. Louisiana State Penitentiary

Plaintiff:	Charles E Grace
Defendant:	Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary
Case Number:	6:2014cv00080
Filed:	January 13, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Office:	Lafayette Office
County:	Evangeline
Presiding Judge:	C Michael Hill
Presiding Judge:	Richard T Haik
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 21, 2015	Filing 28 JUDGMENT ADOPTING 27 Report and Recommendations, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Charles E Grace, 13 Amended Complaint, filed by Charles E Grace. IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's sole remaining sufficiency of the evidence claim is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard T Haik, Sr on 8/19/15. (crt,Jordan, P)
May 8, 2015	Filing 21 JUDGMENT ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendations. IT IS ORDERED that Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the instant petition for federal habeas corpus relief (that the admission of statements of deceased co-conspirator Tony THomas was in violation of pe titioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers; that petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to Compulsory Process was denied when the trial court denied petitioner's request to allow six alibi witnesses to testify because of a d iscovery violation (late disclosure); the State knowingly presented the alleged perjured testimony of Detective Chatuese Richard; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate counsel failed to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (a) failing to comply with discovery rules regarding alibi witness disclosure and (b) failing to request a cautionary charge concerning accomplice testimony; and ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel (a) failed to inv estigate or interview alibi witnesses; (b) failed to provide State with the names of alibi witnesses in response to discovery, (c) failed to file a Motion to Quash or object to the conspiracy to commit armed robbery charges when petition had also bee n charged with armed robbery based on double jeopardy grounds, and (d) failed to request a cautionary charge concerning accomplice testimony) are DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because these claims are procedurally defaulted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Claim 1 of the instant petition (that there was insufficient evidence to support petitioner's convictions) shall remain pending for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Richard T Haik, Sr on 5/8/15. (crt,Guidry, C)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 21, 2015

Filing 28 JUDGMENT ADOPTING 27 Report and Recommendations, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Charles E Grace, 13 Amended Complaint, filed by Charles E Grace. IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's sole remaining sufficiency of the evidence claim is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard T Haik, Sr on 8/19/15. (crt,Jordan, P)

May 8, 2015

Filing 21 JUDGMENT ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendations. IT IS ORDERED that Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the instant petition for federal habeas corpus relief (that the admission of statements of deceased co-conspirator Tony THomas was in violation of pe titioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers; that petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to Compulsory Process was denied when the trial court denied petitioner's request to allow six alibi witnesses to testify because of a d iscovery violation (late disclosure); the State knowingly presented the alleged perjured testimony of Detective Chatuese Richard; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate counsel failed to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (a) failing to comply with discovery rules regarding alibi witness disclosure and (b) failing to request a cautionary charge concerning accomplice testimony; and ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel (a) failed to inv estigate or interview alibi witnesses; (b) failed to provide State with the names of alibi witnesses in response to discovery, (c) failed to file a Motion to Quash or object to the conspiracy to commit armed robbery charges when petition had also bee n charged with armed robbery based on double jeopardy grounds, and (d) failed to request a cautionary charge concerning accomplice testimony) are DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because these claims are procedurally defaulted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Claim 1 of the instant petition (that there was insufficient evidence to support petitioner's convictions) shall remain pending for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Richard T Haik, Sr on 5/8/15. (crt,Guidry, C)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Louisiana Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Grace v. Louisiana State Penitentiary
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Charles E Grace
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?