Finch v. Lumpkin

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10369
Summary Calendar

Drake Jordan Finch,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:18-CV-35

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Drake Jordan Finch, Texas prisoner # 01985702, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for release on bond pending resolution of his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 application. Finch argues that he has suffered a serious

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-10369 Document: 00515553999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2020

No. 19-10369
2
deterioration of his mental health because he is incarcerated. He also asserts
that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the lack of
probable cause and the sufficiency of the evidence, that the prosecution
altered records to show that the victim suffered from a new injury when he
had an old injury, that the prosecution violated Texas procedural rules by
accusing the victim of lying at trial, and that he had no blood stains on himself
or any signs that he had used force.
The respondent asserts that we may lack jurisdiction over this
interlocutory appeal but acknowledges that we have exercised jurisdiction
over appeals from the denial of motions for release on bond in habeas
proceedings. See Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d at 702; see also Watson v.
Goodwin, 709 F. App’x 311, 312 (5th Cir. 2018) (applying Calley to a § 2254
application). Accordingly, we exercise jurisdiction over the instant appeal.
A prisoner may establish conditions for release on bond pending
federal habeas review if he raises “substantial constitutional claims upon
which he has a high probability of success” and shows that “extraordinary or
exceptional circumstances exist which make the grant of bail necessary to
make the habeas remedy effective.” Calley, 496 F.2d at 702. Finch fails to
make such a showing. See Calley, 496 F.2d at 702. Accordingly, the district
court’s order is AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-10369 Document: 00515553999 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2020