IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50728
Summary Calendar
JOHN ROBERT MORGAN, SR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;
DAN MORALES, Attorney General,
Respondents-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 95-CV-24
- - - - - - - - - -
February 22, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Robert Morgan, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals the
denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have
reviewed the record and the district court's order and,for
essentially the same reasons as the district court, find no
reversible error regarding Morgan's contention that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to call Morgan's son, John
Morgan, Jr., as a witness.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-50728
- 2 -
Morgan also argues that counsel was ineffective by failing
to ensure that Morgan was present during the entire voir dire.
The state appellate court found that Morgan was present for the
actual voir dire proceeding, and Morgan has not shown that the
finding is not entitled to a presumption of correctness. Sumner
v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546-47 (1981). Further, Morgan has failed
to demonstrate how counsel's performance in this case caused the
result of the trial to be unreliable or rendered the proceeding
fundamentally unfair. See Lockhart v. Fretwell, 113 S. Ct. 838,
844 (1993). Such failure defeats Morgan's claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel on this ground. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
AFFIRMED.