Trahan v. Cain
178 F.3d 1291
5th Cir.
1999
Check Treatment

KIMBLE DAMON TRAHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-31048

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

April 6, 1999

Summary Calendar

Before DAVIS, DUHE‘, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-896

PER CURIAM:*

Kimble Damon Trahan, Louisiana state prisoner # 119363, requests the issuance of a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court‘s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Trahan argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to make mitigating factors known to the sentencing judge, failed to advise him of the essential elements of the offense, failed to render advice conducive to an informed and intelligent plea, failed to pursue or investigate Trahan‘s assertion that he was not of sound mind at the time of the offense, refused to present Trahan‘s prior psychological history, allowed him to enter a plea of guilty when his competence was very much in question, failed to adequately investigate and prepare for trial, and induced him to plead guilty by advising him that he would receive concurrent twenty-one year sentences.

Except for a brief reference to the absence of mitigating circumstances, the district court did not address the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel raised by Trahan in his habeas petition. Accordingly, Trahan‘s request for a COA is GRANTED as to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to give the district court an opportunity to address Trahan‘s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Trahan‘s claims that the state trial judge failed to inform him of the elements of the offense charged, that he had insufficient mental capacity to possess the requisite intent for the commission of the offense, that his sentence was excessive, and that his convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy were not considered by the court because Trahan failed to request the issuance of a COA on these issues in the district court. See .

COA GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.

Notes

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.