Abdi v. Hatch

• Decision Date: 08 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-2467.,05-2467.
• Citation: Abdi v. Hatch, 450 F.3d 334 (8th Cir. 2006)
• Parties: Hussein Osman ABDI, Appellant, v. Mike HATCH; Eric Newmark; Amy Klobuchar; Thomas Wexler, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

450 F.3d 334

Hussein Osman ABDI, Appellant, v.Mike HATCH; Eric Newmark; Amy Klobuchar; Thomas Wexler, Appellees.

No. 05-2467.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 14, 2006.

Filed: June 8, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Bridgid E. Dowdal, argued, White Bear Lake, MN, for appellant.

Jean E. Burdorf, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Hussein Osman Abdi appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.We affirm.

Abdi was charged in Hennepin County, Minnesota, with five counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a twelve-year-old girl who lived with Abdi and his wife.Abdi consented to a bench trial, waived his right to confront the state's witnesses, and stipulated to the admission of the state's documentary evidence, including DNA reports.In exchange, the state agreed that if Abdi were convicted of all five counts, the state would recommend a 144-month prison sentence—the presumptive sentence for a conviction of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.Following the bench trial, Abdi was convicted of all five counts and was sentenced to 144 months in prison.After the Minnesota courts denied post-conviction relief, Abdi filed a petition for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.Abdi claimed that (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a hearing to challenge the state's DNA evidence, (2)the trial court erred by considering DNA reports when the state failed to establish that the reports' authors were qualified experts, and (3)he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his privilege against self-incrimination.

A magistrate judge¹ recommended the denial of Abdi's habeas petition, concluding that (1) the Minnesota Court of Appeals applied the proper standard in reviewing Abdi's ineffective-assistance claim and properly concluded that counsel's decision not to request a hearing was a matter of trial strategy, (2) Abdi failed to establish that the admission of the DNA reports constituted a due-process violation warranting habeas relief, and (3) Abdi's testimonial-privilege claim was procedurally defaulted and without merit in any event.Adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the District Court² denied relief on all of Abdi's claims but granted a certificate of appealability on Abdi's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective and his claim that the trial court erred in admitting the DNA reports.

When considering a petition for habeas relief, we review a district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.Lyons v. Luebbers,403 F.3d 585, 592(8th Cir.2005).If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court, habeas relief is warranted only if the petitioner shows that the state court adjudication of the claim "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding."28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

We turn first to Abdi's claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a hearing to challenge the admissibility of the DNA reports.³To prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim, Abdi "must show that his trial counsel's performance fell below the standard of customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would display and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different but for the substandard actions of counsel."Rousan v. Roper,436 F.3d 951, 959(8th Cir.2006)(citingStrickland v. Washington,466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984)).Judicial review of counsel's performance is "highly deferential," and there is "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance."Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

After identifying the appropriate standard for reviewing claims of ineffective assistance, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that Abdi's trial counsel's decision not to request a hearing to challenge the admissibility of the DNA reports was a matter of trial strategy.Abdi v. State,No. A03-162, 2003 WL 22998859, at *4(Minn.Ct.App.Dec.23, 2003)(unpublished).The court also pointed out that "because Abdi agreed to stipulate to the admission of the DNA evidence received at trial,"he could not claim that he was surprised or prejudiced when the trial court admitted that evidence.Id.The court further noted that the trial court likely would not have excluded the DNA reports even after a hearing given the absence of evidence to suggest that the data or protocol used to create the reports were flawed.Seeid.The Minnesota Court of Appeals properly identified.Strickland as the controlling authority for ineffective-assistance claims, and its analysis was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.Therefore, the District Court did not err in denying habeas relief on this ground.

Abdi next argues that the trial court erred by considering the DNA evidence because the state failed to establish that the authors of the DNA reports were qualified experts.Abdi's argument fails.The admission of evidence at a state trial provides a basis for federal habeas relief when the "evidentiary ruling infringes upon a specific constitutional protection or is so prejudicial that it amounts to a denial of due process."Turner v. Armontrout,845 F.2d 165, 169(8th Cir.), cert. denied,488 U.S. 928, 109 S.Ct. 315, 102 L.Ed.2d 333(1988).The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that once Abdi stipulated to the admissibility of the DNA...