Scribd
Upload
25 views2 pages

Melvin Wayne Murray v. Terrie Chavis, Warden, Maryland House of Correction, Attorney General of The State of Maryland, 866 F.2d 1416, 4th Cir. (1989)

This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes an appeal from a district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to Melvin Wayne Murray. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with its reasoning for rejecting Murray's claim that inconsistent verdicts violated due process. However, the Fourth Circuit noted that the district court should have relied on a state procedural default in rejecting Murray's insufficient evidence claim, rather than addressing the claim's merits. The Fourth Circuit also found that Murray failed to demonstrate cause for the procedural default or actual innocence.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
25 views2 pages

Melvin Wayne Murray v. Terrie Chavis, Warden, Maryland House of Correction, Attorney General of The State of Maryland, 866 F.2d 1416, 4th Cir. (1989)

This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes an appeal from a district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to Melvin Wayne Murray. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with its reasoning for rejecting Murray's claim that inconsistent verdicts violated due process. However, the Fourth Circuit noted that the district court should have relied on a state procedural default in rejecting Murray's insufficient evidence claim, rather than addressing the claim's merits. The Fourth Circuit also found that Murray failed to demonstrate cause for the procedural default or actual innocence.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

866 F.

2d 1416
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 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unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing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service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth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.
Melvin Wayne MURRAY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Terrie CHAVIS, Warden, Maryland House of Correction,
Attorney General of the State of Maryland,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 88-6778.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


Submitted: Nov. 29, 1988.
Decided: Jan. 30, 1989.

Melvin Wayne Murray, appellant pro se.


John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Valerie Johnston Smith, Office
of the Attorney General, for appellees.
Before K.K. HALL, JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, and MURNAGHAN,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Melvin Wayne Murray appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas
corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Our review of the record
discloses that this appeal is without merit and, accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. With regard to the petitioner's claim that the
verdicts were inconsistent such as would amount to a denial of due process, we
adopt the reasoning of the district court. Murray v. Chavis, C/A No. 88-1236JH (D.Md. July 27, 1988). However, with regard to the claim that the evidence
was insufficient to sustain the conviction for assault and battery, we note that

the district court should have relied on the state procedural default cited by the
respondents in their answer to the petition. See Md.Rule 4-324(a); Smith v.
Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533 (1986); Davis v. Allsbrooks, 778 F.2d 168, 175 (4th
Cir.1985). Murray failed to show cause for the procedural default and the
record does not reveal "a constitutional violation [that] probably resulted in the
conviction of one who is actually innocent." See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S.
478, 496 (1986). We note further that, in addressing the merits of the petition,
the district court has convinced us that Murray cannot demonstrate the
necessary prejudice to excuse the default. See Murray v. Carrier, supra;
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87 (1977).
2

AFFIRMED.

You might also like