Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-31055/USCOURTS-ca5-18-31055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Troy Greenup
Appellant
Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31055

TROY GREENUP,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:17-CV-4185

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Troy Greenup, Louisiana prisoner # 600654, moves for a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 application challenging his conviction for rape of a child under the age 

of 13. Greenup argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to 

an anomaly in the jury’s verdict, trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

object to a nurse being allowed to testify as an expert in child sexual abuse, 

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a defense expert to rebut the 

* 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

May 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-31055 Document: 00515416776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2020
No. 18-31055

2

testimony of the State’s expert, trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for 

failing to raise a conflict of interests claim, the trial court erred by not 

addressing the conflict sua sponte, the introduction of other crimes evidence 

violated his right to due process, the State’s use of prejudicial and 

inflammatory language during closing arguments violated his right to due 

process, and the denial of an out-of-time appeal deprived him of his due process 

right to have to his appeal decided on a complete and accurate record.

To obtain a COA, Greenup must make “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Greenup has not made the requisite 

showing. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336.

To the extent that Greenup seeks a COA to appeal the denial of his 

motion for an evidentiary hearing, he is not required to obtain a COA, and we 

construe his COA motion as a direct appeal of the district court’s denial of his 

motion. See Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016). Greenup 

fails to show that the denial of his motion was erroneous. See Cullen v. 

Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 185-86 (2011).

Accordingly, Greenup’s motion for a COA is DENIED. The district 

court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing is AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-31055 Document: 00515416776 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2020