IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31474
Summary Calendar
WILLIE MARTIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana
State Penitentiary
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(99-CV-3233)
--------------------
June 18, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Willie Martin, Louisiana prisoner # 111528, appeals
the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. He argues that he was deprived of his right to a fair
trial by being compelled to appear at his jury trial wearing
identifiable prison clothing, and that his trial attorney was
ineffective for failing to make a timely objection to such attire.
Martin first argues that both the state habeas court and the
district court denied relief under an improper application of
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), because they failed to
*
Pursuant to 5TH 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
R. 47.5.4.
consider testimony presented at an evidentiary hearing before the
trial court in 1997. We reject this argument. An evidentiary
hearing was ordered by the Louisiana Supreme Court to determine
issues pertaining to Martin’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. See State ex rel. Martin v. State, 679 So. 2d 414, 414 (La.
1996). The evidence adduced at the hearing had no bearing on
Martin’s other claims for post-conviction relief. The state habeas
court proceedings did not involve an unreasonable application of
clearly established federal law and did not result in a decision
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d). Moreover, considering the overwhelming evidence in the
record that supports the jury verdict, error at the trial level
would have been harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619,
637-38 (1993). The district court did not clearly err in not
considering testimony from the evidentiary hearing on the fair
trial issue. See Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 255 (5th Cir.
2001).
We next address Martin’s argument that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to make a
timely objection to Martin’s prison garb. Again, when considered
in the light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the jury
verdict, Martin cannot show prejudice even if we assume arguendo
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on this claim.
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
2