Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40885/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40885-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40885

Summary Calendar

 

CHARLIE J. LONG,

 PetitionerAppellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

 RespondentAppellee.

------------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CV-354

------------------------------------------------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charlie J. Long (“Long”), Texas prisoner # 902617, appeals the district court’s denial of his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Long’s petition stems from his

1999 conviction for aggravated assault, for which he isserving a 20-yearsentence. The district court

 Case: 03-40885 Document: 0051509073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2004
 

 

-2-

granted Long a certificate of appealability on the sole issue whether Long was deprived of his right

to compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment when a defense witness asserted his Fifth

Amendment right against self-incrimination upon the advice of an attorney appointed to represent the

witness. The state courts rejected this claim on the merits. Long also has filed a motion for leave to

file an out-of-time reply brief of excess length; that motion is GRANTED.

Contrary to Long’s assertion, the record does not support a determination that the witness’s

invocation of his Fifth Amendment right was anything but voluntary. Further, once the witness

appeared in court and refused to testify, Long’s Sixth Amendment compulsory process rights were

exhausted, regardless of the reason for invoking the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Griffin,

66 F.3d 68, 70 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Follin, 979 F.2d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the state court’s rejection of Long’s Sixth Amendment claim was not based on an

unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and

Long is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-40885 Document: 0051509073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2004