Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30330 Su m m ar y Cal endar
SH AN E D EM AR CU S LEM O N S P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. BURL CAI N, W ARDEN, L OUI S I ANA S TA TE P ENI TE NTI ARY R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 07- C V

- 1788

B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P e tit io n e r -A p p e lla n t S h a n e D e m a r c u s L e m o n s a p p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f h is h a b e a s c o r p u s p e t i t i o n b r o u g h tu n d e r2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4
. We a f f i r m. I Lem o ns w as c o nvi c t e d a ta b e nc h t r i alo f o ne c o unto f

a gg r av at e d r ap e a nd United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk08- 30330

Lemons waived his P SR and IQ test clai ms byfailin g to r aise them in hi sb rief in 1 support of his applicationfor a certificate of appealabilityand do es not make any arguments relatin gto thos e cl aim s here. See Hughes v . Jo hnson , 1 9 1 F .3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 3( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 2 w as s e nt e nc e d t o li fe inpr i s o n. On di r e c ta ppe al , Le m o ns a s s e r t e d t hatt he evi den ce w as i n suff

i ci en tt o sup port h i s c on vi ct i on an d that t h e t ri alcourterr ed i n fai l i n g t o order a presentence i n vest i gati on ( P S R ) an d IQ t estbef ore s e n t e n c i n g ; h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e we r e a f f i r me d
. T h e L o u i s i a n a S u p r e me C o u r td e n i e d L e mo n s ’ s p e t i t i o n f o ra w r i to f

c e r t i o r a r i , w h i c h r a i s e d t h e s a me g ro u n d s fo r r e li e f. Lem o ns f

i l e d a s t a t e p o s t c o nv i c t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n, a s s e r t i ngt ha tt he t r i al
c o ur te r r e d i n f

i ndi ng t hathe ha d k no w i ngly w aive d hi s r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al
. The t ri alcourtden i ed the peti t i on . Lem on s d id n o tseek w ri t s f rom t h e den i alof
r e l i e f
. Le m o ns t he n f i l e d t he i ns t a nt2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 4 p e t i t i o n, a s s e r t i ngt hat t he e vi de nc e w as i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s upp o r thi s c o nvi c t i o n, t hathe w as de ni e d d ue pr o c e s s b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t fa i l e d t o o r d e r a PS R a n d I Q t e s t , a n d t h a the
w ou l d su f

fer a m i scarr i age of

j u st i ce i f h i s hab eas peti t i on w ere denied becau se he w as i nno c e ntof

ra pe . The m ag i s t r at e j udg e i s s ue d ar e po r t , r e c o m m e ndi ng t hatr el i ef

be deni ed. W i t h re spe c t t o t he suf f i c i enc y c l ai m , t he m agi st r at e j udge
c o ns i de r e d t he fac t ualfi n di ngs m ad e b y t he s t at e a ppe l l at e c o ur ta nd determ i n ed that t h ere w as suf f i ci e n t evi den ce of

aggrav ated rape ba sed on L e m o n s ’s c o n fe s s io n to th e p o li c e , t h e p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e , a n d th e v ic t im ’s t est i m on y. Lem on s obj ect ed t o t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s report
. Th e di st ri ctcourt
c o nduc t e d a n i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w , a do pt e d t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e ’ s r e po r t , a nd den i ed L em on s’ s § 225 4 peti t i on w i t h prej u di ce. Lem on s s ou gh ta cer t i f i cat e of
a p p e a la b ilityo n lya s to th e s u ffic ie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e , w h ic h a ju d g e o f th is
c o ur tg r ant e d. 108- 30330

3 II

“ I n r e v ie w in ga r u li n go n th e m e r it s o f a h a b e a s c la im , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s fin d in g s o f fa c t a r e re v ie w e d fo rcle a re r r o r ; its co n c lu s io n s o f la w , de no vo .” S ch a etz le v
. Co ck re ll , 3 43 F. 3d4 40 , 4 43 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3)
. The A nt i t e r r o r i s m a nd E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t (“A E D P A”) g o v e r n s th is ca s e . U n d e rA E D P A , a fe d e r a l co u r t m a yn o t g r a n t h a b e a s r e lie f a fte ra n a dju d ic a tio n o n th e m e r its in
a s t at e c o ur tpr o c e e di ng unl e s s t he a dj udi c at i o n o f t he c l ai m (1) “r e s ul t e d i n a d e c is io n th a t w a s co n tr a r yto , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f, cle a r ly est abli shed F ederallaw , a s det erm i n ed byt h e Su prem e C ou rtof t h e U n i t ed S ta te s ” o r(2 ) “r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n t h a t w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n a b le determ i n ati on of

t h e fact s i n l i gh t of t h e evi den ce presented i n t h e State court p r o c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). T h e s ta te co u r t’s fa c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n s “s h a ll be pr e s um e d t o b e c o r r e c t” , and t he pet i t i o ne rhas t he “bur de n of re but t i ng t he p resu m p ti on of corre ctn ess bycl ea r an d con vin ci n g e vid en ce.” I d. § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1 ). III O n a p p e a l , L e m o n s r e p e a t s h i s a s s e r t i o n t hatt he e vi de nc e w as i ns uf f i c i e nt to su p p ort h i s ag gr a va ted rap e con victi on . In d eterm i n i n g w h eth er a state convic t i on i s s u pp ort ed by su f f i ci en tev i den ce, the court consi ders w h et h er “ af t er vi ew i ng t he evi denc e i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pr os ec ut i on, any r at i onal t r i e ro f fac tc o ul d ha ve f

o und t he e s s e nt i al elem en t s o f t he c r i m e b e yo nd a
rea son a b l e d ou b t. ” Ja ck so n v. V irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ); s e eAgui lar v. D r e t ke , 4 28 F. 3d5 26 , 5 34 –3 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5)
. U nde rL ou i s i anal aw, r ap e oc c urs w hen an of

fenderhas nonco nse nsualanal , or al , orvagi nals exual i nt er c our se w i t h anot heri ndi vi dual ; any de gr ee of penet r at i on i s suf

f i c i ent
. La. R .S . 1 4 :4 1
. “A n yp e n e tr a tio n , h o w e v e rs lig h t, o f th e a p e r tu r e o f th e fe m a le08- 30330

4 ge n i tali a , ev en i ts ex tern a l featu res, i s su ff i ci en t. ” St at ev . Be r t r and , 461 So. 2d 11 59 , 1 16 2 ( La. Ct
. App. 19 84 )
. A r ap e i s ag gr av at e d i f t he v i c t i m i s und e rt he
a g e of 1 3
. L a . R .S
. 1 4 :42 (A)(4). T h e st ate appell ate c ou rtsum m ari zed the evi den ce of t h e i ssue as f ol l ow s. Th e vi c t i m , B
. T. , w as Lem ons ’ s ni ec e and w as ni ne year s ol d on M ar c h 21, 2004, th e d a te the cri m e occ u rred
. B
. T
. testi fi ed tha t on tha t eve n i n g sh e w en t t o L e mo n s ’ s b e d r o o m. Wh i l e s h e w a s t h e r e , Le mo n s p u l l e d h e ri n t o t h e r o o m, to u c h e d h e r“in th e fr o n t,” p u lle d h e ro n to th e b e d , p u lle d d o w n b o th o f th e ir pa n t s, l ai d on t op of

her, an d pu th i s p en i s on her. Sh e st ated t h at s h e di d n ot feelL em on s’ s pen i s on t h e i n si de of h er private pa rt
. S h am eka B u t l er t est i f i ed t hats he o bs e r ve d B. T. , na ke d f r o m t he w ai s tdo w n, o n t o p o f Le m o ns a nd i m m edi atel y i n f

orm ed B
. T
. ’ s paren t s. B
. T
. ’ s father an gri l y confr on t ed L em on s, w ho f l ed t h e house and w entt o t he pol i c e t o c onfes s. D uri ng ques t i oni ng, Le m o n s t wi c e s t a t e d t h a th e h a d p u t t h e h e a d o f h i s p e n i s i n B. T. ’ s v a g i n a . At t ri al , L em on s den i ed that any pen et rat i on ha d tak en pl ace, bu tackn ow l edg ed t h at he t ou ched B
. T
. “ on her private. ” W h en q u est i on ed abou tthe d i scr epa n cy bet w ee n hi s c onfes si on and hi s t r i a ltes ti m ony, Lem ons s t at ed t hathe w as confused an d n ervous du ri n g t h e off i cers ’q u est i on i n g. T h e t ri alcourtrej ect ed L em on s’ s asser t i on s and cr edi t ed the st atem en t s m ad e du ri n g h i s pol i ce confes si on . D r. F ran ci s B ri an t est i f i ed ab ou tt h e vi ct i m ’ s exam i n a tion report becau se t h e exam in in gp h ysi ci an , D r. W esl ey D yer, ha d d i ed befor e t ri al
. D r. D ye r ’ s no t e s i nc l ude d as e xua la s s aul thi s t o r y c o nt ai ni ng a de scr i pti o n o f t he
as sa ul tpr ovi ded byt he vi c t i m i ndi c at i ng t hatB
. T. had s t at ed t hatLem ons had pen et rat ed h er vagi n al l y. A l t h ou gh D r. D yer’ s notes i n di cat ed that B. T. ’ s hym en w a s i n tact an d tha t t h ere w a s n o ob viou s trau m a , D r. B ri a n testi fi ed tha t a08- 30330

I n anyca se, the Loui sian a corpus delicti rul e does not apply to every eleme nt of the 2 of fe n se . See State v. Mart in , 645 So. 2d 190, 194(La. 1994) (“The rul e shoul d not b e exte nded toa ddarequirem ent th at in de pe n de nt evidencec orrob or ateeveryele me nt of th e crim e admitte d in the accu sed’s statement , the generalreliab ility of whichh as b eencorroborate d. Corr ob or at ing

evidence need only show the e ssential inj uryinvolved in the charge d crime
. . . in order to estab lish the reli ability of the inculpatory statements of the accu sed; the corroborating evidence nee d not show every eleme nt in the definitio n of t hech ar ge d crime
. . . .”). Here, there is sufficie nt corroborating evidence to e stablish that Lemons was engagedin impr ope r sexual activity with B.T. 5 po r t i o n o f

Le m o ns ’ s pe ni s c o ul d ha ve e nt e r e d B. T. ’ s bo dy w i t ho ut r upt ur i ng t he h y m e n o r c a u s in g o b v io u s tr a u m a . F u r th e r , D r . D y e r w a s u n a b le to a d m it h is f i nge r t i p i nt o t he v ag i nalo r i f i c e , b utf

o und bl o o dy as pi r at e w he n was hi ng t he
area. D r. B ri an t est i f i ed t h at such a f

i n di n g w as u n u sua l i n a n i n e- year- ol d gi rl ands i gni f

i e s e i t he rt r aum a f

ur t he ri ns i de t he b o dyo ra n i nfe c t i o n. L em on s notes t h at t h e vi ct i m ’ s t est i m on y at t ri aldi d n otest abli sh pe ne t r at i o n b uti ns t e ado nl y s ho w e d a “t ou chi n g” o f t he v ag i na. H e c o nt e nds th a t in lig h t o f th e a b s e n c e o f c o r r o b o r a tin gm e d ic a l e v id e n c e o rv ic tim t e s t i m o ny, t he r e w as i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o e s t abli sh hi s g ui l tb e yo nd a
reasona bl e dou bt. H e f u rt h er argues t h at un der L ou i si an a l aw , “ an accused pa r t y c anno t be l e ga l l y c o nvi c t e d o n hi s o w n unc o r r o bo r at e d c o nfe s s i o n wi t ho ut pr o o f t hata cr i m e h ad be e n c o m m i t t e d b y s o m e o ne ; i n o t he rw o r ds , w i t ho ut p roo f of t h e cor p u s d eli cti
. ” St at ev . Cr uz , 4 5 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 5 (L a . 1 9 8 4 ). W e h a v e n o d o u b tth a tin lig h to f L e m o n s ’s c o n fe s s io n , t h e v ic t im ’s t e s t i m o ny, a nd t he m e di c alevi denc e , t he s t at e c o ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o n t hatt he Jackson s t a n d a r d w a s s a t is fi e d w a s n o tu n r e a s o n a b le . M o r e o v e r , L e m o n s ’s reli a n ce on the co r p u s d eli ctido ctri n e is m i sp l a ced : L ou i sian a ’ s corp u s d eli cti
r e q u i r e m e n t i s n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y m a n d at e d. S ee W estv. Joh n son , 92 F. 3d 2 1 3 8 5 , 1 3 9 3

– 9 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ); A u try v. Este lle , 706 F
. 2d 139 4, 140 7 ( 5th C i r.08- 30330

6 1983) ( “ [ S] uch a s t at e r ul e o f ‘ c or pus del ec t i ’ has no i ndependentc ons t i t ut i onal footi n g.” )

. T h e d i stri c tc our tdi d noter ri n denyi ng Lem ons ’ s fede r alhabeas pe t i t i o n. IV F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED.