Howard v. Braun
Decision Date | 22 January 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-082 |
Parties | LeRon Howard, Petitioner, v. Colby Braun, Warden, NDSP, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota |
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Before the court is a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner, LeRon Howard ("Howard") and respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Both parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.1 For the reasons set forth below, Howard's petition is denied and respondent's motion is granted.2
On May 2, 2011 a criminal Complaint was filed in the District Court for Stutsman County, North Dakota, charging Howard and co-defendant Janelle Alexandra Cave ("Cave") with Murder, a class AA felony and Criminal Conspiracy, a class AA felony. (Ex. 2). A criminal Information was subsequently filed on July 7, 2011. (Ex. 3). On January 27, 2012, the State moved to sever the trials of Howard and Cave. (Ex. 7). On January 30, 2012, the state trial court granted the State's motion to sever the trials. (Ex. 8). On March 23, 2012, the state trial court ordered a multi-county jury panelpursuant to N.D.C.C. § 27-09.1-05.1. (Ex. 11). The order required a panel of 80 jurors, including 60 from Stutsman County and 20 from Barnes County. (Ex. 11). Howard filed a motion for change of venue on April 9, 2012, and an amended motion for change of venue on April 13, 2012. (Exs. 12 and 13). The state trial court denied Howard's motion for change of venue on May 2, 2012. (Ex. 15).
On August 23, 2012, the jury found Howard guilty of Murder, a class AA felony and Criminal Conspiracy, a class AA felony. (Exs. 19 and 20). Howard moved for a new trial and/or dismissal of count two, Criminal Conspiracy, on August 31, 2012. (Ex. 21). On September 13, 2012, the state trial court denied Howard's motion for a new trial. (Ex. 23). On November 14, 2012, Howard was sentenced to life without parole. (Ex. 26).
Howard appealed his conviction to the North Dakota Supreme Court on December 5, 2012. (Ex. 27). Howard argued that: (1) the trial court erred in using a multi-county jury panel; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for murder and criminal conspiracy. Id. On October 22, 2013, the North Dakota Supreme Court rejected his claims and affirmed his convictions. State v. Howard, 2013 ND 184, 838 N.W.2d 416 ("Howard I").
Howard next filed an application for postconviction relief with the state trial court on January 15, 2014. (Ex. 32). Howard claimed: (1) the jury was unconstitutionally selected and impaneled because of the biases of several of the jurors; (2) counsel was ineffective in several respects; and (3) there was prosecutorial misconduct. Id. The State filed an answer to Howard's application forpostconviction relief and also moved for summary disposition. (Exs. 33 and 34). On February 24, 2014, Howard filed a second application for postconviction relief that included the same general claims alleged in the first application. (Ex. 35). The State submitted an answer and moved for summary dismissal of Howard's second application for postconviction relief. (Exs. 36 and 37). Howard was then appointed counsel, who filed a supplement to Howard's application for postconviction relief on April 24, 2014, that included additional discussion with respect to the points already raised and a new claim of insufficiency of the evidence. (Ex. 38). The State again moved for summary disposition. (Ex. 39). On June 10, 2014, the state postconviction court dismissed the application for postconviction relief without holding a hearing. (Ex. 40).
Howard appealed the order dismissing his postconviction application. (Ex. 41). On April 28, 2015, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the state postconviction court's dismissal of the postconviction application. Howard v. State, 2015 ND 102, 863 N.W.2d 203 ("Howard II").
Howard next filed his § 2254 petition with this court. (Doc. No. 2). Howard's petition raises four different grounds for relief. In his first ground, he alleges that there was insufficient evidence to allow a guilty verdict on the criminal conspiracy charge. In his second ground, he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for multiple reasons. In his third ground, he alleges that the state trial court erred in empaneling a multi-county jury panel and denying his amended motion for change of venue. In his fourth and final ground, he alleges prosecutorial misconduct. (Id.).
The following factual summary, taken verbatim from the decision of the North Dakota Supreme Court on direct appeal, is set forth below because it provides context in evaluatingHoward's claims.
To continue reading
Request your trial