United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-2444

_____________ Dana A. Ivy, * * Petitioner-Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Michael S. Bowersox, * * Respondent-Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: April 17, 1997 Filed: September 4, 1997

_____________ Before BOWMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________The Hon orable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Easter n 1 District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Ho norable Thomas C. Mummert, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
Dana Ivy (petitioner), an inmate at the Potosi Correctional Center in Minera l Poin t, Missouri, appeals the district court's order denying his petition for a writ o f 1 habeas co rpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner argues that th e dis trict court erred in denying him relief on his two claims alleging state trial court evidentiary errors and on his four claims alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his direct appeal. Finding no merit to the petitioner's arguments, we affirm.
I. The petitioner was convicted of first degree robbery for stealing a woman's car and purse. On direct appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. State v. Ivy , 768 S.W.2d 151 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner asserted that (1) the Missouri t rial court had erred in allowing the victim to testify that she had identified the petitioner through the use of polic e department photographs, allegedly suggesting to the jury that the petitioner had a criminal record, and (2) the Missouri trial court had erred in admitting evidence o f unauthorized long-distance telephone ca lls to the petitioner's aunt that were charged to the victim's telephone credit card following the robbery, allegedly constitutin g imperm issible circumstantial evidence and evidence of other crimes. The petitione r argued that both of these errors depriv ed him of his constitutional right to due process. The petit ioner also asserted that his appellate counsel had rendered ineffectiv e assis tance for failing to raise four additional claims in the direct appeal of petitioner's3

conviction. After reviewi ng each of these claims, the district court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
II. We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact fo r clear error. Miller v. Lock , 108 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 1997). In the habea s context, a state court evidentiary ruling will warrant relie f "only if the alleged error was so conspicu ously bad that it fatally infected the trial and rendered it fundamentall y unf air." Troupe v. Groose , 72 F.3d 75, 76 (8th Cir. 1995). Moreover, an appellat e counsel's failure to raise an issue on appeal will justify habeas relief only when there is a "reasonable probability that an appeal of [the] issue would have been successfu l and th at the result of the appeal would thereby have been different." Pryor v. Norris , 103 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 19 97). After careful review, we find no clear error in the district court's factual findings, and we agree with the court's conclusion that none of the petitioner's claims qualify for habeas relief under the standards listed above.
III. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court. The petitioner's pendin g motions are denied. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.