Court Opinion

ID: 9491177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:05:51.866686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:33.543222
License: Public Domain

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
I join’the majority’s opinion except for (1) its decision to address “claim 4,” the claim that Magouirk’s conviction was obtained with insufficient evidence, and-(2) the remand.order, and its loose language, which allows a re-arguing of Magouirk’s wholly state-law claim that the state has waived its right to argue that this prisoner waived his confrontation rights. I therefore respectfully dissent in part.
Magouirk’s opening brief in this court does not raise the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue under even the most generous of readings. Accordingly, under the well-settled jurisprudence of this circuit, this non-jurisdictional argument is waived. See, e.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). T would not address this, or other, issues that Magouirk has chosen not to raise and argue in this court.
I would also explicitly limit the scope of the remand to the federal, constitutional issue of Magouirk’s waiver of his confrontation rights. The distinct issue whether the state has waived its claim to assert that Magouirk has waived his constitutional rights is an issue purely of state law and is not renewable by a federal habeas court. The majority errs to the -extent that its remand order can be read to encompass this issue of state law.