Scott Dale White v. State of Florida, Dep't of Corr. Harry K. Singletary, Robert Butterworth, 939 F.2d 912 (11th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Scott Dale White v. State of Florida, Dep't of Corr. Harry K. Singletary, Robert Butterworth, 939 F.2d 912 (11th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2008–2021 · 2 courts · …in a federal habeas corpus case brought by a state prisoner, the absence of a perfect transcript does not violate due process absent a showing of specific prejudice. at p. 914 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 · …since petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the defective suppression hearing transcript prejudiced his direct appeal, he is entitled to no relief on this claim. at p. 914 ✓
23 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: HUEY v. MYERS (gamd, 2021-09-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) HUEY v. MYERS
M.D. Ga. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in a federal habeas corpus case brought by a state prisoner, the absence of a perfect transcript does not violate due process absent a showing of specific prejudice.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Quintero v. Tilton (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
C.D. Cal. · 2008 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
since petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the defective suppression hearing transcript prejudiced his direct appeal, he is entitled to no relief on this claim.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Quintero v. Tilton (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
C.D. Cal. · 2008 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
since petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the defective suppression hearing transcript prejudiced his direct appeal, he is entitled to no relief on this claim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thompson v. United States
1st Cir. · 2023 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. White v. Fla., Dep't of Corr., 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir. 1991) (concluding that counsel was not deficient in failing to recognize an error in a hearing transcript because "[t]he error . . . went undiscovered by several attorneys and judges for approximately five years . . . [and] was not obvious").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Menzies v. Powell
10th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Higginbotham v. Louisiana, 817 F.3d 217, 222 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); White v. State of Fla., Dep’t of Corrs., 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir. 1991); Bransford v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir. 1986); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 698 F.2d 940 , 941–42 (8th Cir. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Gipson
N.D. Cal. · 2015 · confidence medium
Id. at 648-49 (finding that the petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because he had not shown prejudice by the absence of a complete transcript); see Scott v. Elo, 302 F.3d 598, 604 (6th Cir.2002) (“federal habeas relief based on a missing transcript will only be granted where the petitioner can show prejudice”); White v. State of Florida, Department of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991) (“in a federal habeas corpus case brought by a state prisoner, the absence of a perfect transcript does not violate due process' absent a showing of specific prejudice”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hardin v. Maxwell
10th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Id. at 942 ; see also Saathoff v. Hesse, No. 95-1130, 1995 WL 749722, at **2 (10th Cir. Dec. 19, 1995) (unpublished order and judgment) (applying prejudice requirement); Ortiz-Salas v. INS, 992 F.2d 105, 106 (7th Cir. 1993) (requiring petitioner “to make the best feasible showing he can that a complete and accurate transcript would have changed the outcome of the case”); White v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir. 1991) (requiring showing of prejudice); Bransford v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir. 1986) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Neal
Mich. · 1998 · confidence medium
See Moore v. Carlton, 74 F.3d 689, 693 (C.A.6, 1996); Bransford v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83 (C.A.6, 1986); White v. Florida Dep't of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914, n. 4 (C.A.11, 1991); Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1146 (C.A.5, 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. Jones
11th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Depree v. Thomas, 946 F.2d 784, 793 (11th Cir. 1991); White v. State of Fla., Dept. of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 910 , 112 S. Ct. 1274 (1992); Campbell v. Wainwright, 738 F.2d 1573, 1575-76 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1126 , 106 S. Ct. 1652 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. Jones
11th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Depree v. Thomas, 946 F.2d 784, 793 (11th Cir.1991); White v. State of Fla., Dept. of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 503 U.S. 910 , 112 S.Ct. 1274 , 117 L.Ed.2d 500 (1992); Campbell v. Wainwright, 738 F.2d 1573, 1575-76 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1126 , 106 S.Ct. 1652 , 90 L.Ed.2d 195 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Radamez Carrazana
D.C. Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See also, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 16 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir.1994); White v. Florida Dept. of (Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Colmenares-Hernandez, 659 F.2d 39, 43 (5th Cir.1981); Edwards v. United States, 374 F.2d 24, 26 (10th Cir.1966).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Beverly v. Walker
N.D.N.Y. · 1995 · confidence medium
Ortiz-Salas v. I.N.S., 992 F.2d 105, 106 (7th Cir.1993); White v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Velez v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
In White v. State, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, White v. Singletary, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1274 , 117 L.Ed.2d 500 (1992), defendant alleged that he was denied meaningful review on direct appeal because the appellate court reviewed an incomplete transcript.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Willie R. Robinson v. Howard A. Peters, III and Neil F. Hartigan
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Bransford v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1056 (1987); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 698 F.2d 940, 941 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1135 (1983); White v. State of Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1274 (1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lemire
Vt. · 1994 · confidence medium
Bransford v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1056 (1987); see also Ortiz-Salas v. I.N.S., 992 F.2d 105, 106 (7th Cir. 1993) (petitioner must make best feasible showing that complete and accurate transcript would change case outcome); White v. Florida, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir. 1991) (defendant must show prejudice from imperfect transcript), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 910 , 112 S. Ct. 1274 (1992); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 698 F.2d 940, 941-42 (8th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1135 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Milliken
Me. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. Fla., Dep’t of Corrs., 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991) (citing Bransford); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 698 F.2d 940, 941-42 (8th Cir.1983); see also Ortiz-Salas v. INS, 992 F.2d 105, 106 (7th Cir.1993) (requiring a petitioner in an immigration appeal “to make the best feasible showing he can that a complete and accurate transcript would have changed the outcome of the case”). [¶ 16] Contrary to Milliken’s contention, relying on federal precedent does not improperly read a prejudice requirement into Maine law.
cited Cited "see" Jimmy Doyle Hindman v. Paul Healy
11th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. State of Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912 , 914 n. 4 (11th Cir.1991).
cited Cited "see" Washington v. Scott
10th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections , 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rick D. Saathoff v. Lou A. Hesse, Warden Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of the State of Colorado
10th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., White v. Florida Dep't of Corrections, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 910 (1992); Bransford v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1056 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Henry Glover v. John Littlefield, Warden
6th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also White v. Florida, 939 F.2d 912, 914 (11th Cir.1991) (following Bransford ), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1274 (1992); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 698 F.2d 940, 941-42 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1135 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Scott Dale WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Harry K. Singletary, Robert Butterworth, Respondents-Appellees
90-3375.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 21, 1991.
939 F.2d 912
Scott Dale White, Belle Glade, Fla., for petitioner-appellant., Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
Clark, Cox, Dubina.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
DUBINA, Circuit Judge:

The appellant in this case, Scott Dale White (“White”), appeals from the judgment of the district court denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

White is a Florida prison inmate presently serving consecutive life terms of imprisonment for kidnapping and sexual battery. White was convicted following a jury trial, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed. [1] This is White’s second federal habeas petition. [2]

In the present petition White raises five grounds for relief: (1) denial of right to meaningful appeal because the appellate court reviewed invalid transcripts; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (4) Brady [3] violations; and (5) gross error committed by the court reporter made it impossible for the state appellate court to render a fair assessment of the case. White subsequently withdrew grounds two and four and grounds one and five were consolidated. Counsel for White also apparently withdrew ground three by stating that there was no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, but White, in his pro se objections to the magistrate judge’s report,[*914] stated that he did not intend for that ground to be abandoned.

The record in this case demonstrates that due to an error committed by the court reporter, the trial testimony of four witnesses was substituted in place of their suppression hearing testimony. This error was not discovered until after the district court dismissed White’s first habeas petition.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Denial of A Meaningful Direct Appeal

White contends that he was denied due process because the defect in the suppression hearing transcript foreclosed his right to a meaningful direct appeal. White relies on case law that has construed the application of the Court Reporter Act, 28 U.S.C. § 753, in cases where a federal defendant has appealed his conviction and there was some omission or defect in the transcript on appeal. [4] In its brief, the state argues that White is not entitled to relief because he has failed to show how the transcript error prejudiced his state appeal.

While this circuit has not considered the issue presented in this case, two other circuits have determined that in a federal habeas corpus case brought by a state prisoner, the absence of a perfect transcript does not violate due process absent a showing of specific prejudice. See Bransford v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 86 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1056, 107 S.Ct. 2198, 95 L.Ed.2d 853 (1987); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 698 F.2d 940, 941-42 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1135, 103 S.Ct. 3120, 77 L.Ed.2d 1373 (1983). We are persuaded by the reasoning of the sixth and eighth circuits.

Accordingly, we agree with the district court that since White has failed to demonstrate how the defective suppression hearing transcript prejudiced his direct appeal, he is entitled to no relief on this claim.

B. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

In his brief, White argues that his state appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to discover the error in the suppression hearing transcript. The state argues that appellate counsel’s performance was not deficient because it was not unreasonable for counsel not to have discovered the error and that in any event White suffered no prejudice. We agree with the district court that appellate counsel’s performance was not deficient. The error in the transcript went undiscovered by several attorneys and judges for approximately five years. The error in the transcript was not obvious and appellate counsel was not deficient for failing to discover it. Moreover, as previously stated, White has failed to show any prejudice resulting from the defect in the transcript.

C. New Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

White raises for the first time on appeal a claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate with trial counsel regarding issues for appeal. This claim was not presented to the district court and is therefore not properly before this court on appeal. See United States v. Edmondson, 818 F.2d 768, 769 (11th Cir.1987).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court denying White’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

AFFIRMED.

1

. White v. State, 415 So.2d 1377 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982).

2

. The district court determined that the present petition was not an abuse of the writ and that there was no procedural bar. The state does not appeal these rulings and does not challenge exhaustion. White's first habeas petition in which the district court denied relief was affirmed by a panel of this court in White v. Wainwright, 780 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir.1985).

3

. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

4

. Two rules of law have evolved in this circuit regarding violations of the Court Reporter Act in federal cases. The first holds that failure to comply with the Act is not per se error and does not require reversal absent a showing of hardship to the defendant and a prejudicial effect upon his appeal. A separate rule applies when a defendant has different counsel for direct appeal. In that event, the absence of a substantial and significant portion of the record entitles such defendant to a new trial even absent any showing of prejudice. See United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303, 1305-06 (5th Cir.1977). Selva and its progeny do not address petitions by state prisoners to federal courts for writs of habeas corpus, as is the case here.