Huston v. Smith

• Decision Date: 11 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. C 13-4063-MWB,C 13-4063-MWB
• Parties: PAUL MICHAEL HUSTON, a/k/a PAUL MICHAEL BLAISE, Petitioner, v. JASON SMITH, Superintendent of Cherokee Mental Health Institution, BRAD WITTROCK, Deputy/Acting Superintendent of Cherokee Mental Health Institution, and CHARLES PALMER, Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

PAUL MICHAEL HUSTON, a/k/a PAUL MICHAEL BLAISE, Petitioner, v. JASON SMITH, Superintendent of Cherokee Mental Health Institution,BRAD WITTROCK, Deputy/Acting Superintendent of Cherokee Mental Health Institution,and CHARLES PALMER, Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, Respondents.

No. C 13-4063-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

January 11, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 3

A. Factual Background ............................................................... 3

1. The criminal case .......................................................... 3

2. The first civil commitment trial and appeal ........................... 4

3. The second civil commitment trial ...................................... 6

B. Procedural Background ........................................................... 8

1. Huston's pro se petition ................................................... 8

2. Huston's amended petition and the respondents' answer ........................................................................ 9

3. The oral arguments ...................................................... 10

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 11

A. Standards For § 2254 Relief .................................................... 11

B. Claims Pressed By Counsel ..................................................... 15

1. The right to effective counsel in civil commitment proceedings ................................................................ 15

a. Arguments of the parties ....................................... 15 b. Analysis ............................................................ 17

2. Counsel's failure to preserve speedy trial rights .................... 20

a. Arguments of the parties ....................................... 20

b. Analysis ............................................................ 21

3. Counsel's failure to obtain a bifurcated trial ....................... 24

a. Arguments of the parties ....................................... 24

b. Analysis ............................................................ 26

C. Claims Pressed By Huston Pro Se ............................................ 29

1. Huston's "Padilla claim" ............................................... 29

2. Huston's religious claims ............................................... 30

a. Arguments of the parties ....................................... 32

b. Analysis ............................................................ 33

D. Other Claims ...................................................................... 37

E. Certificate Of Appealability ..................................................... 37

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 38

Is Paul Michael Huston (a/k/a Paul Michael Blaise), an inmate of the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) in Cherokee, Iowa, entitled to habeas relief from his civil commitment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254? Huston's habeas counsel contends that Huston's civil commitment counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to secure a bifurcated trial and in failing to preserve Huston's right to a speedy trial. Huston asserts additional claims pro se, including a "Padilla claim"¹ that his trial counselin his underlying state criminal case failed to inform him that a collateral consequence of his guilty plea to a harassment charge might be his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. The respondents deny that Huston has a clearly established federal right to effective assistance of counsel in civil commitment proceedings, but if he does, that his claims are without merit.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

Huston's legal odyssey involves a predicate criminal conviction and two civil commitment trials, post-conviction relief proceedings on his criminal conviction, and appeals of his civil commitment. I will lay out the milestones in that journey, as described by the Iowa appellate courts.

1. The criminal case

In its decision on Huston's direct appeal of his civil commitment, the Iowa Supreme Court described the circumstances leading to Huston's predicate criminal conviction as follows:

As S.E. walked through River View Park in Fort Madison in October 2005, Paul Blaise [a/k/a Huston], who was collecting cans in the park, approached her and began asking her questions. He asked her if she was married, if she was sexually active, and if she would engage in anal sex. He wondered if she had ever been the victim of a violent crime, if she would use lubrication to have anal sex, if she would take her clothes off or have sex if someone asked her or threatened to hurt her. Although S.E. grew increasingly uncomfortable and quickened her pace, Blaise kept up with her while continuing to ask "hypothetical" questions. S.E. tried repeatedly to change the conversation and eventually ran away from Blaise and asked another pedestrian to walk her to her car. After warning another female pedestrian that "therewas someone in the park talking about rape and guns and all kinds of sexual stuff," S.E. called the police. Officers located Blaise in the park and discovered he was carrying a gun. Blaise ultimately pled guilty to first-degree harassment and received a two-year sentence.

In re Det. of Blaise, 830 N.W.2d 310, 313 (Iowa 2013). There does not appear to be any dispute that Huston's criminal counsel never advised him that a possible consequence of his conviction or guilty plea to the harassment charge was civil commitment as a sexually violent predator pursuant to IOWA CODE CH. 229A. See, e.g., Blaise v. State, 801 N.W.2d 627, 2011 WL 2078091, *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 2011) (table op.) (final state court decision on Huston's appeal of denial of his petition for state post-conviction relief from his criminal conviction).

On December 6, 2005, Huston was convicted on his guilty plea and sentenced to two years of imprisonment. State Court Documents, Sealed Exhibit 31 (Judgment Entry of Iowa District Court For Lee County At Fort Madison). Huston's criminal conviction was final prior to his application for state post-conviction relief in May 2007.

2. The first civil commitment trial and appeal

The next step on Huston's legal odyssey was his first civil commitment trial. As the Iowa Supreme Court explained, "While Blaise was incarcerated for the harassment offense, the State sought to have him committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under Iowa Code chapter 229A." In re Det. of Blaise, 830 N.W.2d at 313. There does not appear to be any dispute that, prior to Huston's first civil commitment trial, his civil commitment counsel, appointed pursuant to IOWA CODE CH. 229A, moved the trial court to bifurcate the trial. His civil commitment counsel argued that Huston's entire background, including details about all of his past criminal acts and other matters, would be superfluous and, in fact, prejudicial to the jury's ability to decide the first question before them, that is, whether his harassment conviction was for a sexually violent offense,as defined in IOWA CODE CH. 229A, but the motion to bifurcate was denied. In re Det. of Blaise, 770 N.W.2d 852, 2009 WL 1066767, *1 (Iowa Ct. App. April 22, 2009) (table op.) (intermediate appellate court decision on Huston's appeal of his civil commitment). As the Iowa Supreme Court also explained, "After a trial in January 2007, a jury found Blaise was an SVP and he was ordered committed for treatment. Blaise appealed." In re Det. of Blaise, 830 N.W.2d at 313.

There were further proceedings, in both the trial court and the appellate court, on the state's first attempt to civilly commit Huston. As the Iowa Supreme Court explained,

In December 2007, Blaise sought a stay of his appeal and filed a motion for a new trial in the district court, alleging the doctor who had testified for the State in his SVP trial was an "admitted mentally ill pedophile with serious difficulty controlling his behavior." On February 28, 2008, we granted the stay and issued a limited remand which provided:

The motion for limited remand is granted for a period of sixty days to allow the district court to address the respondent's motion for new trial and the State's resistance. Counsel for the parties shall promptly inform the district court about this order.

The clerk of district court shall transmit a certified, file-stamped copy of the district court's remand ruling to the clerk of the supreme court. Within fourteen days of the date of the district court's remand ruling, the parties shall file statements with the supreme court addressing the status of this appeal.

Further appellate proceedings in this case are stayed during the above-stated limited remand period. This court retains jurisdiction.

On remand, the district court granted Blaise's motion and set a new trial date for August. The State appealed from the district court's grant of new trial. On July 14, Blaiseexecuted a speedy trial waiver, which was filed with the district court on July 28. On July 31, we combined the two appeals, stayed the proceedings in the district court, and transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals issued its decision on April 22, 2009, affirming the district court's grant of a new trial. Procedendo issued on May 21.

In re Det. of Blaise, 830 N.W.2d at 313-14 (footnote omitted).

3. The second civil commitment trial

Before Huston's second civil commitment trial, his civil commitment counsel, again, moved to bifurcate his trial, this time "basing his argument on potential 'jury confusion,'" but that motion was, again, denied. In re Det. of Blaise, 830 N.W.2d at 314. The Iowa Supreme Court detailed the evidence presented at the second trial, as follows:

During the trial,

...