Daniels v. Iowa
Decision Date | 04 January 2021 |
Docket Number | No. C19-2079-LTS,C19-2079-LTS |
Parties | DERRICK DEONDRE DANIELS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
This matter is before me on a motion (Doc. 9) by the State of Iowa (the State) to dismiss petitioner Derrick Daniels' pro se application (Doc. 1) for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Daniels has filed a response.1 Doc. 10. Oral argument is not necessary. See Local Rule 7(c).
On May 8, 2014, following a bench trial, the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County (the district court) found Daniels guilty of (1) possession of a controlled substance (more than 50 grams of cocaine base) with intent to distribute in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(a)(3); and (2) failing to affix a drug tax stamp in violation of Iowa Code § 453B.12. Doc. 8-4 at 142. The Iowa Court of Appeals summarized the facts and trial proceedings as follows:
Daniels v. State, 949 N.W.2d 443 (Table), 2020 WL 4201236, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2020) (quoting State v. Daniels, 888 N.W.2d 680 (Table), 2016 WL 5408279, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016)). The district court sentenced Daniels to indeterminate terms of imprisonment of up to 50 years on the controlled substance charge and five yearson the drug tax stamp charge, to run concurrently. Doc. 8-4 at 173. Daniels must serve at least one-third of the 50-year sentence. Id. at 174.
Daniels appealed, claiming: "(1) insufficiency of the evidence to support conviction; (2) the sentence violated the clauses of the state and Federal Constitutions prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment; and (3) the sentence imposed violated the Equal Protection Clause of both the state and Federal Constitution." State v. Daniels, 888 N.W.2d 680 (Table), 2016 WL 5408279, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016); see also Doc. 8-4 at 178; Doc. 8-5. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. 2016 WL 5408279, at *2-4. Daniels applied to the Iowa Supreme Court for further review. Doc. 8-9. The Iowa Supreme Court denied the application as untimely. Doc. 8-10.
In February 2017, Daniels applied for post-conviction relief (PCR) in the district court, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Doc. 8-12 at 14-19. Specifically, Daniels alleged that his trial counsel (1) failed to pursue a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the vehicular search, (2) failed to adequately advise him on his decision to waive his jury trial rights and (3) failed to independently test the controlled substance found in the bag. Id.
The district court denied the application. Id. at 20-26. Daniels appealed, raising only a new argument that "his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to argue his trial counsel should not have withdrawn a motion to suppress his inculpatory statements." Daniels v. State, 922 N.W.2d 104 (Table), 2018 WL 3301826, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 5, 2018); see also Doc. 8-13. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Daniels could not establish the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim premised on this evidence's admission. Daniels v. State, 922 N.W.2d 104 (Table), 2018 WL 3301826, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 5, 2018) (). There is no indication Daniels sought further review by the Iowa Supreme Court. Procedendo issued on August 13, 2018. Doc. 8-16.
Daniels filed a second PCR application in May 2018, raising the following claims:
[T]he district court abused its discretion by allowing his statements to Deputy Sidles to be admitted because the State had not provided the videotape to defense counsel before trial. Daniels further argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial once the district court admitted his statements, and appellate and first PCR counsel were also ineffective for failing to argue trial counsel had been ineffective for that omission. He also argued his due-process rights were violated by admission of the video.
Daniels v. State, 949 N.W.2d 443 (Table), 2020 WL 4201236, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2020); see also Doc. 8-17 at 6-12. Daniels supplemented his allegations by arguing that his sentence was illegal, that it violated state and federal double jeopardy protections and that the statements he made to Sidles were involuntary. Id. at 85. The district court dismissed the application, finding the grounds raised had either been finally adjudicated or procedurally defaulted. Id. at 84-85.
Daniels appealed, raising only the argument that "prior appellate and first PCR counsel were ineffective in failing to raise a due-process challenge related to the admission of the video recording in which Daniels made incriminating statements." 2020 WL 4201236, at *3. The Iowa Court of Appeal rejected this argument, stating:
The issue raised in this appeal was finally adjudicated on appeal in Daniels's first PCR application. On appeal in the first PCR action, our court clearly ruled Daniels could not prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel related to admission of the video recording containing Daniels's incriminating statements because Daniels could not meet the prejudice prong of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
Id. Daniels applied to the Iowa Supreme Court for further review. That application remains pending. Doc. 8-22.
Daniels mailed his habeas petition (Doc. 1) to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on December 18, 2019. On December 20, 2019, that court transferred the petition to this court. Doc. 4. In his petition, Daniels appears to raise five2 distinct claims: (1) abuse of discretion by the district court; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (4) ineffective assistance of his first PCR counsel; and (5) cruel and unusual punishment. The first four claims are intertwined, as they all relate to the admission into evidence of a video recording containing inculpatory statements Daniels made to Sidles. Daniels alleges the district court abused its discretion in admitting the recording and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence and failing to move for a mistrial upon its admission. Daniels alleges his appellate counsel and first PCR counsel were ineffective for failing to argue that the admission of this evidence should have led to a mistrial.
In an initial review order (Doc. 6), I directed the State to file a limited response or dispositive motion addressing whether Daniels' petition is timely and whether Daniels properly exhausted his claims. The State then filed its present motion to dismiss, statingthat the petition is timely but contending that it contains no properly exhausted claim and proper exhaustion is not possible. Doc. 9-1 at 4, 6.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a pre-answer motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court has provided the following guidance in considering whether a pleading properly states a claim:
To continue reading
Request your trial