Appleby v. Cline
Decision Date | 27 December 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 15-3038-JTM |
Parties | BENJAMIN APPLEBY, Petitioner, v. SAM CLINE, ET AL., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
This matter comes before the court on Benjamin Appleby's petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1), Respondents' Answer and Return (Dkt. 16), and the relevant state court records (Dkt. 17). Appleby, through counsel, alleges numerous grounds for relief, including ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary errors, a jury instruction error, and a sentencing error. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that Appleby is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief and denies the petition.
A federal court reviews a state prisoner's challenge to matters decided in state court proceedings pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), which "requires federal courts to give significant deference to state court decisions" on the merits. Lockett v. Trammel, 711 F.3d 1218, 1230 (10th Cir. 2013). A federal court may not grant a state prisoner habeas relief with respect to "any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings" unless the prisoner can show that the state court's adjudication of the claim "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." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). "Clearly established law" refers to the Supreme Court's holdings, as opposed to its dicta. Lockett, 711 F.3d at 1231. A state court decision is "contrary to" the Supreme Court's clearly established precedent "if the state court applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases, or if it decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court has] done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002) (quotations omitted). "Factual determinations by state courts are presumed correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, § 2254(e)(1), and a decision adjudicated on the merits in state court and based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding, § 2254(d)(2)." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003).
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show both that his counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). Failure under either prong is dispositive. Id. at 697. In reviewing counsel's performance, courts presume that counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159, 1168 (10th Cir. 2011). Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Petitioner bears a heavy burden of overcoming the presumption that counsel's actions were sound trial strategy. Id. This burden increases doubly at the § 2254 proceeding level as federal courts defer not only to the attorney's decision in how to best represent a client, but also to the state court's determination that counsel's performance was not deficient. Id.
The court presumes the state court's factual determinations are correct, unless the petitioner rebuts the presumption with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Appleby has not proffered any evidence in support of that burden. Thus, the court adopts the following facts as taken from the Kansas Supreme Court's ("KSC") opinion affirming his conviction.
To continue reading
Request your trial