Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Parks v. Jackson, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It summarizes that Jerome Parks filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. The appellate court reviewed the case and found no reversible error, determining that counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge Parks' sentence or indictment under North Carolina law. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-11-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7010

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It summarizes that Jerome Parks filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. The appellate court reviewed the case and found no reversible error, determining that counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge Parks' sentence or indictment under North Carolina law. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Parks v. Jackson, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It summarizes that Jerome Parks filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. The appellate court reviewed the case and found no reversible error, determining that counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge Parks' sentence or indictment under North Carolina law. The appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7010

    JEROME PARKS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RICK JACKSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-99-34-3-MU)

    Submitted:

    November 4, 1999

    Decided:

    November 10, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Jerome Parks, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jerome Parks seeks to appeal the district courts order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West
    1994 & Supp. 1998).

    We have reviewed the record and the district

    courts opinion and find no reversible error.


    Our review reveals that counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge Parks sentence or his indictment.

    Under North

    Carolina law, Parks sentence was properly enhanced because he had


    a prior conviction for a Class 1 misdemeanor that was not a traffic
    offense.

    See N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1340.14 (1997).

    Parks in-

    dictment clearly reflects that he was charged with two separate


    counts in connection with his crime, and his written plea colloquy
    reflects that he pled guilty to each count. Thus, counsels representation was not deficient for failing to object.

    See Strickland

    v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-91 (1984).


    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like