United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 11, 2003
_____________________
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 02-30645 Clerk
Summary Calendar
_____________________
JAMES CRANDELL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(99-CV-2166)
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Crandell, Louisiana prisoner #301148, was convicted of
first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Concerning
his application for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254, our court granted Crandell a certificate of appealability on:
(1) whether Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), bars Crandell’s
asserting his challenge to the indictment; (2) whether Crandell
validly asserted denial of due process and equal protection by the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
alleged racially discriminatory method of selecting grand jury
forepersons in Bossier Parish; and (3) whether counsel was
ineffective for failing to move to quash the indictment on that
basis. (Crandell’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is
DENIED.)
The district court’s determination that Campbell v. Louisiana,
523 U.S. 392 (1998) (white defendant has third-party standing to
challenge exclusion of blacks from grand jury), was a “new rule” of
constitutional law that could not be applied retroactively under
Teague is erroneous in the light of our subsequent decision in
Peterson v. Cain, 302 F.3d 508, 515 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
123 S. Ct. 886 (2003). Peterson held the Supreme Court derived its
Campbell decision from its earlier decisions in Powers v. Ohio, 499
U.S. 400 (1991), Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339 (1984), Rose
v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545 (1979), and Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493
(1972)(plurality opinion). Peterson, 302 F.3d at 512-15. All of
these decisions were rendered prior to when Crandell’s conviction
became final. In short, Campbell is not a new rule of law and
Teague does not bar Crandell’s due process and equal protection
claims.
As for Crandell’s claim that counsel was ineffective for
failing to move to quash, the district court’s ineffective
assistance of counsel ruling was based, in part, on Campbell’s
being a new rule of Constitutional law.
2
We, therefore, VACATE that portion of the district court’s
judgment on these issues and REMAND: (1) Crandell’s due process and
equal protection claims based on the alleged racially
discriminatory method of selecting grand jury forepersons in
Bossier Parish; and (2) his ineffective assistance claim for
counsel’s failure to move to quash the indictment on that basis.
VACATED and REMANDED
3