1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 00-1344

________________

Sean Riggins,

Appellant,

v.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas

Department of Correction,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

________________

Submitted: December 14, 2000

 Filed: February 1, 2001 

________________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit

Judges. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Sean Riggins appeals the district court's1 denial of his petition for writ of habeas

corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). We affirm. 
2

Riggins was convicted in Arkansas state court on one count of first-degree

murder and was sentenced as a habitual offender to a 50-year term of imprisonment.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the conviction in September 1994. See

Riggins v. State, 882 S.W.2d 664 (Ark. 1994). In November 1994, Riggins filed a

petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. Riggins claimed

that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to convey the state's plea

offer of a 15-year recommended sentence in exchange for his testimony implicating

others involved in the crime. At an evidentiary hearing on the claim, the state stipulated

that such an offer was made. Riggins testified, however, that his trial counsel never

conveyed the offer to him, and that if the offer had been conveyed, he would have

accepted it. Riggins' trial counsel testified during the evidentiary hearing that he could

not recall whether the state made an offer.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court commented that it did not believe

Riggins' "stories" and that if an offer was made it was conveyed. In a subsequent

written order denying Riggins' petition, the court ruled that there was no substantial

evidence supporting the claim that Riggins' trial counsel failed to convey the state's plea

offer. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial of Riggins' ineffective

assistance of counsel claim. See Riggins v. State, 946 S.W.2d 691 (Ark. 1997).

Recognizing that it had previously held that a failure to convey a plea offer may

constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court of Arkansas concluded

that the trial court did not believe, nor was it obligated to believe, Riggins' testimony

that his counsel failed to convey the offer, a predicate fact supporting his

ineffectiveness claim. See id. at 692.

Riggins filed a petition for habeas corpus in June 1998, claiming that the state

courts' rejections of his ineffectiveness claim were "based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) (Supp. IV 1998). In its order dismissing the
3

petition, the district court concluded that Riggins was unable to show by clear and

convincing evidence that his trial counsel did in fact fail to convey the plea offer to him.

See id. at § 2254(e)(1) ("[A] determination of a factual issue made by a State court

shall be presumed to be correct," rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence.).

Although Riggins argues his testimony was credible (and that there was no evidence

presented during the state court evidentiary hearing contradicting his testimony), the

state trial court was certainly entitled to disbelieve Riggins' self-serving testimony, as

both the Supreme Court of Arkansas and the district court noted. See Loeblein v.

Dormire, 229 F.3d 724, 726 (8th Cir. 2000) ("[T]he trier of fact is entitled to make the

ultimate decision of whether testimony is to be believed."); cf. Cuppett v. Duckworth,

8 F.3d 1132, 1139 (7th Cir. 1993) ("[W]e have repeatedly held that self-serving

statements by a defendant that his conviction was constitutionally infirm are insufficient

to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded state convictions."), cert. denied,

510 U.S. 1180 (1994). The state trial court had the particular vantage to observe

Riggins and assess his credibility. Having carefully reviewed the record, including the

specific portions relied upon by Riggins, we agree with the district court that Riggins

has not overcome the presumption that the state court made a correct assessment. 

Accordingly, we agree that the state courts' denials of Riggins' ineffective

assistance of counsel claim were not based on an unreasonable determination of the

evidence presented at the Rule 37 hearing. We therefore affirm the judgment of the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT