IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30908
Summary Calendar
ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden,
Louisiana State Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CV-1136-H
--------------------
July 22, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Robert Williams, Louisiana state prisoner # 87511,
has appealed the denial of habeas relief relative to his
conviction of aggravated rape. We DENY his application for the
appointment of counsel and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
Williams contends that he is entitled to relief on grounds
that the trial court’s jury charge on reasonable doubt violated
his constitutional rights as set forth in Cage v. Louisiana, 498
U.S. 39 (1990). The dispositive appellate issue is whether the
district court reversibly erred by holding that this claim is
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 19 CIR. R. 47.5, the court has
determined that this opinion should not be published and is not
precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. 19 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-30908
-2-
procedurally barred. See Boyd v. Scott, 45 F.3d 876, 879-80 (5th
Cir. 1994).
After the trial court denied Williams’s first application
for postconviction relief, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied his
application for writs. State ex rel. Williams v. Whitley, 584
So. 2d 1155 (La. 1991). Thereafter, Williams filed a pleading
which, he contends, was merely supplemental to his original
postconviction application. In the pleading he alleged his Cage
claim for the first time.
The state trial court denied relief on grounds that the
claim “could have been raised in the previous post-conviction
relief motion, but for whatever reason was not.” The court
correctly held that the claim should have been raised in
Williams’s first petition, even though Cage had not yet been
decided. See James v. Cain, 50 F.3d 1327, 1332-34 (5th Cir.
1995). The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Williams’s application
for writs. State ex rel. Williams v. Whitley, 653 So. 2d 585
(La. 1995). As the district court held, Williams’s contention
that his second application for postconviction relief was merely
a continuation of his first such application is frivolous.
Williams asserts that his Cage claim is not barred because
the trial court proceedings failed to comply with La. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 930.8 (West 1998), which provides rules for the
statute of limitations applicable to postconviction relief. This
lacks merit because the state court denied relief on grounds that
the Cage claim could have been raised in Williams’s first
No. 98-30908
-3-
application. See La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 930.4 (West
1998). Thus, the statute of limitations was not implicated.
Finally, Williams contends that the state trial court denied
him due process by not giving him an opportunity to explain why
he had not included his Cage claim in his first petition for
postconviction relief. This is refuted by the transcript of the
hearing which the state court held on Williams’s “supplemental”
application.
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED.