Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-30998/USCOURTS-ca5-13-30998-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Keith
Appellee
Dennis D. Thomas
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30998

Summary Calendar

DENNIS D. THOMAS,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

TIMOTHY KEITH,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:12-CV-575

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to the requisite certificate of appealability, and proceeding pro 

se, Dennis D. Thomas, Louisiana prisoner # 533237, challenges the dismissal

of his habeas-corpus application contesting his conviction for manslaughter. 

Thomas asserts the court erred in concluding his ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claims are procedurally barred because of the state appellate court’s 

reliance on his failure to comply with a briefing rule. 

* 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

March 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 13-30998 Document: 00512984244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
No. 13-30998

This court does not reach that question. Instead, and as respondent 

asserts correctly, the judgment must be affirmed because Thomas failed to 

exhaust his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims by fairly presenting them 

to the Louisiana Supreme Court prior to seeking federal habeas relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). Thomas has 

not filed a reply brief and has not shown that, if he returns to state court in an 

effort to exhaust, the state courts will not find his constitutional claims barred 

as successive and untimely. See Sones v. Hargett, 61 F.3d 410, 416-18 (5th Cir. 

1995).

Thomas contends his appellate attorney failed to assert his ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claims in his application for discretionary review in the 

state supreme court. Appellate counsel are not required to raise every 

nonfrivolous issue, and Thomas does not explain why his attorney’s failure to 

raise his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims was professionally 

unreasonable or affected the fundamental fairness of the entire proceedings. 

E.g., Givens v. Cockrell, 265 F.3d 306, 310 (5th Cir. 2001). He has also not

shown cause and actual prejudice excusing his failure to exhaust on some other 

basis, or that the failure to consider his constitutional claims will result in 

a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 

(1991). 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 13-30998 Document: 00512984244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2015