Boles v. Long

• Decision Date: 04 June 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 20-cv-3204-WJM
• Parties: RUSSELL M. BOLES, Applicant, v. JEFF LONG, S.C.F., and PHILLIP WEISER, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

RUSSELL M. BOLES, Applicant, v. JEFF LONG, S.C.F., and PHILLIP WEISER,Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents.

Civil Action No. 20-cv-3204-WJM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

June 4, 2021

Honorable William J. Martínez

ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Applicant, Russell M. Boles, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. Mr. Boles has filed pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1) (the "Application") challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence in Jefferson County District Court case number 2015CR2447. Respondents have filed an Answer (ECF No. 24) and Mr. Boles has filed a Reply (ECF No. 31).

After reviewing the record, including the Application, the Answer, the Reply, and the state court record, the Court concludes Mr. Boles is not entitled to relief.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Colorado Court of Appeals on direct appeal summarized the background of Mr. Boles' case as follows:

Defendant and the victim both leased separate garage spaces on the same property. Defendant also parked his RV there. On the night of the incident, the victim went to check on an AC unit attached to the garage. Without warning, defendant came up behind the victim and shot him in the leg before retreating into his RV.

When law enforcement arrived, defendant refused to leave the RV, resulting in a nearly five-hour standoff with police and SWAT.

The prosecution charged defendant with first degree assault and failure to leave premises under section 18-9-119, C.R.S. 2018.

At trial, defendant represented himself and chose not to testify after the trial court advised him that if he chose to testify, the prosecution could cross-examine him on prior felony convictions.

Defendant's theory of defense was that he shot the victim in self-defense and in defense of his property. In attempting to prove his theory, defendant sought to introduce evidence of the victim's prior misdemeanor convictions. He also requested that security camera recordings in the area be preserved. No such recordings were available at trial.

(ECF No. 9-3 at pp.2-3.) Mr. Boles was convicted as charged and sentenced to twenty-four years in prison. The judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal. (See id.) On November 4, 2019, the Colorado Court of Appeals denied Mr. Boles' petition for writ of certiorari. (See ECF No. 9-4.)

Mr. Boles asserts five claims in the Application. He contends in claim one that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because the trial court forced him to represent himself and then interfered with his ability to do so. Claim two is a due process claim in which Mr. Boles challenges certain jury instructions. Mr. Boles contends in claim three that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). He contends in claim four that hisFourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested without a warrant. Finally, claim five is a cumulative error claim. Additional facts pertinent to each claim are set forth below.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

The Court must construe the Application and other papers filed by Mr. Boles liberally because he is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

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). Mr. Boles bears the burden of proof under § 2254(d). See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011).

The Court's inquiry is straightforward "when the last state court to decide a prisoner's federal claim explains its decision on the merits in a reasoned opinion." Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). "In that case, a federal habeas court simply reviews the specific reasons given by the state court and defers to those reasons if they are reasonable." Id. When the last state court decision on the merits "does notcome accompanied with those reasons, . . . the federal court should 'look through' the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale [and] presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning." Id. The presumption may be rebutted "by showing that the unexplained affirmance relied or most likely did rely on different grounds than the lower state court's decision, such as alternative grounds for affirmance that were briefed or argued to the state supreme court or obvious in the record it reviewed." Id.

The threshold question the Court must answer under § 2254(d)(1) is whether Mr. Boles seeks to apply a rule of law that was clearly established by the Supreme Court at the time the state court adjudicated the claim on its merits. Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 38 (2011). 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." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). 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 thatclearly 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, 120 S. Ct. 1495). "The word 'contrary' is commonly understood to mean 'diametrically different,' 'opposite in character or nature,' or 'mutually opposed.'" Williams, 529 U.S. at 405, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (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, 120 S. Ct. 1495.

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 the relevant 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 "only if all fairminded jurists would agree that the state court got it wrong." Stouffer v. Trammel, 738 F.3d 1205, 1221 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore,

[E]valuating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule's specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomesin 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.

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, brackets in original). 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. at 102. In addition, "review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits." Cullen, 563 U.S. at 181.

Under this standard, "only the most serious misapplications of Supreme Court precedent will be a basis for relief under § 2254." Maynard, 468 F.3d at 671; see also Richter, 562 U.S. at 102 (stating "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable").

As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.

Richter, 562 U.S. at 103.

Section 2254(d)(2) allows the Court to grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the relevant state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to the state court. Pursuant...