Boetger v. Burnell, Civil Action No. 14-cv-00675-PAB

• Decision Date: 16 June 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 14-cv-00675-PAB
• Parties: MICHAEL A. BOETGER, Applicant, v. ACTING WARDEN BURNELL, Buena Vista Correctional Facility, and JOHN SUTHERS, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

MICHAEL A. BOETGER, Applicant, v. ACTING WARDEN BURNELL, Buena Vista Correctional Facility, andJOHN SUTHERS, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents.

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00675-PAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

June 16, 2015

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Applicant Michael A. Boetger has filed pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the validity of his criminal conviction in the District Court of Teller County, Colorado. Respondents have filed an Answer [Docket No. 35], and Applicant has filed a Reply [Docket No. 38]. Having considered the same, along with the state court record, the Court will deny the Application.

I. BACKGROUND

Applicant's September 2007 trial resulted in a hung jury in Teller County District Court Case No. 06CR185. Docket No. 10-2 at 8. In December 2007, Applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. Id. at 8-9. Before sentencing, Applicant filed, pro se, two letters requesting that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Colo. Crim. P. Rule ("Crim. P.") 32(d). Id. at 11-12. The state district court appointed counsel who filed an amended Crim. P. 32(d) motion. Id. at 12-13. Following an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied themotion. State Court R., 6/16/08 Hrg. Tr. The state court then sentenced Applicant to an indeterminate prison term of eight years to life in the Colorado Department of Corrections. Docket No. 35-3, 8/11/08 Hrg. Tr.

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the state district court's order denying Applicant's Crim. P. 32(d) motion. See People v. Boetger, No. 08CA2011 (Colo. App. Aug. 26, 2010) (unpublished) (Boetger I).

In February 2012, Applicant filed, pro se, a Crim. P. 35(c) motion, seeking to set aside his guilty plea, which the district court denied. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order in People v. Boetger, 12CA688 (Colo. App. Dec. 26, 2013) (unpublished) (Boetger II). Docket No. 10-8. The Colorado Supreme Court denied Applicant's petition for certiorari review on November 3, 2014. Docket No. 22-1.

On March 4, 2014, Mr. Boetger filed his federal application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting 12 claims for relief. Docket No. 1. In the Pre-Answer Response, Respondents conceded the timeliness of the Application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) of the AEDPA. Docket No. 10, at 6-8. Respondents argued, however, that claims 2, 5, 9, 10, and 11 were not cognizable on federal habeas review. Id. at 14, 29-30. Respondents further maintained that the remaining federal claims were procedurally barred. Id. at 12, 15-29, 30-32.

In a February 26, 2014 Order, the Court dismissed Applicant's claims on the grounds asserted by Respondents, except for the following: claims 1, 3, part of claim 6 (asserting that Applicant's plea agreement violated due process because the trial court failed to inform him that he was essentially agreeing to a life sentence of incarcerationwith only the possibility of parole and to explain the meaning and nature of an indeterminate sentence); part of claim 4 (asserting that Crim. P. Rule 32(d) counsel was ineffective), and part of claim 12 (cumulative error concerning the exhausted allegations of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6). Docket No. 34.

The Court reviews Applicant's remaining claims below under the AEDPA standard of review.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides that a writ of habeas corpus may not be issued with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court adjudication:

(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). The applicant bears the burden of proof under § 2254(d). See Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 25 (2002) (per curiam).

A claim may be adjudicated on the merits in state court even in the absence of a statement of reasons by the state court for rejecting the claim. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98-99 (2011). In particular, "determining whether a state court's decision resulted from an unreasonable legal or factual conclusion does not require that there be an opinion from the state court explaining the state court's reasoning." Id. at 98. Thus,"[w]hen a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary." Id. at 99. Even "[w]here a state court's decision is unaccompanied by an explanation, the habeas petitioner's burden still must be met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief." Id. at 98. In other words, the Court "owe[s] deference to the state court's result, even if its reasoning is not expressly stated." Aycox v. Lytle, 196 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the Court "must uphold the state court's summary decision unless [the Court's] independent review of the record and pertinent federal law persuades [the Court] that its result contravenes or unreasonably applies clearly established federal law, or is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented." Id. at 1178. "[T]his 'independent review' should be distinguished from a full de novo review of the petitioner's claims." Id.

The court reviews claims of legal error and mixed questions of law and fact pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Cook v. McKune, 323 F.3d 825, 830 (10th Cir. 2003). The threshold question the court must answer under § 2254(d)(1) is whether the applicant seeks to apply a rule of law that was clearly established by the Supreme Court at the time his conviction became final. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000). Clearly established federal law "refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision." Id. at 412. Furthermore,

clearly established law consists of Supreme Court holdings in cases where the facts are at least closely-related or similar to the case sub judice. Although the legal rule at issue need not have had its genesis in the closely-related or similar factual context, the Supreme Court must have expressly extended the legal rule to that context.

House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010, 1016 (10th Cir. 2008). If there is no clearly established federal law, that is the end of the court's inquiry pursuant to § 2254(d)(1). See id. at 1018.

If a clearly established rule of federal law is implicated, the court must determine whether the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of that clearly established rule of federal law. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 404-05.

A state-court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if: (a) "the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases"; or (b) "the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [that] precedent." Maynard [v. Boone], 468 F.3d [665,] 669 [(10th Cir. 2006)] (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 405). "The word 'contrary' is commonly understood to mean 'diametrically different,' 'opposite in character or nature,' or 'mutually opposed.'" Williams, 529 U.S. at 405 (citation omitted).

A state court decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law when it identifies the correct governing legal rule from Supreme Court cases, but unreasonably applies it to the facts. Id. at 407-08. Additionally, we have recognized that an unreasonable application may occur if the state court either unreasonably extends, or unreasonably refuses to extend, a legal principle from Supreme Court precedent to a new context where it should apply.

House, 527 F.3d at 1018.

The court's inquiry pursuant to the "unreasonable application" clause is an objective inquiry. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-10. "[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that therelevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather that application must also be unreasonable." Id. at 411. "[A] decision is 'objectively unreasonable' when most reasonable jurists exercising their independent judgment would conclude the state court misapplied Supreme Court law." Maynard, 468 F.3d at 671. In addition,

evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule's specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations. [I]t is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme] Court.

Richter, 562 U.S. at 101 (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting this analysis, the court "must determine what arguments or theories supported or . . . could have supported[ ] the state court's decision" and then "ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of [the Supreme] Court." Id. Moreover, "review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits." Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011).

Under this standard, ...