Case ID: f3d_240/html/0738-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HEANEY, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stanley D. LINGAR, Petitioner, v. Al LUEBBERS, Respondent.
    No. 01-1283.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Feb. 2, 2001.
    
      Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, HEANEY and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
   JUDGMENT

Having considered the motions and application filed on behalf of Stanley D. Lin-gar, the court makes the following rulings. (1) Lingar’s motion to authorize the filing of a successive habeas corpus petition is denied. (2) Lingar’s application for stay of execution pending application of his motion for leave to file a successive habeas corpus petition is denied. (3) Lingar’s motion for appointment of counsel is granted.

It is so ordered.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,

concurring and writing separately.

I have serious doubts as to whether Stanley D. Lingar is entitled to the relief that he seeks in this motion. I continue to believe strongly, however, that Lingar’s counsel was ineffective in telling the jury in the sentencing phase of Lingar’s trial that it could only consider statutory mitigating factors. As I stated previously in Lingar v. Bowersox, 176 F.3d 453, 462 (8th Cir.1999) (Heaney, J., dissenting):

The jury could and should have been given the opportunity [to] consider all mitigating factors, including a history of sexual abuse, substance abuse, and blackouts; a mental evaluation revealing borderline mental retardation, acute paranoid and depressive disorders; expression of remorse; and indications that Lingar was a good candidate for rehabilitation. Lingar was clearly prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to develop and present this evidence. There is no reasonable probability that • a jury advised of these circumstances would have imposed the death sentence on this 20-year-old, mentally retarded and mentally disturbed young man.

It is my hope that the United States Supreme Court, who now has this case pending before it on a petition for certiora-ri, will consider the whole record and give Lingar the relief he seeks, but for the reasons stated in my dissent in Lingar.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.