Johnson v. Fayram

• Decision Date: 07 November 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14-CV-00040-LRR,14-CV-00040-LRR
• Parties: JOSEPH LEO JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. JOHN FAYRAM, Respondent.
• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa

JOSEPH LEO JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. JOHN FAYRAM, Respondent.

No. 14-CV-00040-LRR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

November 7, 2016

ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 2

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................. 2

A. Conviction ....................................... 2

B. Direct Appeal ..................................... 2

C. State Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings ................... 4

D. Federal Habeas Corpus Action .......................... 6

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................ 7

IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW ................................ 8

A. Requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) ................... 8

B. Exhaustion and Procedural Default ..................... 11

V. DISCUSSION ........................................ 13

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims .................. 14

1. Applicable law ............................... 14

2. Claims .................................... 16

a. Failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct ....... 16

b. Failure to pursue a justification defense .......... 19

c. Failure to make a sufficiently specific motion for judgment of acquittal .................... 23

B. Due Process Claims ............................... 24

1. Overruling of hearsay objection .................... 24 2. "Dangerous weapon" jury instructions ............... 26

VI. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ........................ 29

VII. CONCLUSION ....................................... 31

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is the "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus" ("petition") (docket no. 1), which Joseph Leo Johnson ("the petitioner") filed on March 27, 2014.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Conviction

On September 20, 2007, a jury found the petitioner guilty of first degree murder in violation of Iowa Code section 707.2. See App'x, Order Accepting Verdict (docket no. 10-11) at 83. On November 29, 2007, the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County ("Iowa District Court") sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See App'x, Judgment and Sentence (docket no. 10-11) at 84.

B. Direct Appeal

On December 5, 2007, the petitioner appealed his conviction on four bases: (1) the Iowa District Court erred in submitting the issue of his guilt to the jury, (2) the jury returned a verdict against the weight of the evidence, (3) the Iowa District Court erred in admitting hearsay and (4) trial counsel failed to request certain jury instructions. See App'x, Petitioner's Direct Appeal Brief (docket no. 10-4). Additionally, the petitioner filed a pro se brief. See App'x, Petitioner's Pro Se Direct Appeal Brief (docket no. 10-5). In such brief, the petitioner generally asserted that insufficient evidence of his guilt existed and trial counsel should have informed the Iowa District Court that he did not possess a dangerous weapon. Id. at 8-13. However, the petitioner requested that the Iowa Court of Appeals reserve his second pro se claim for post-conviction proceedings. Id. at 13.

On January 22, 2010, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the petitioner's conviction and sentence. See App'x, Direct Appeal Opinion (docket no. 10-7); see also State v. Johnson, 779 N.W.2d 494 (Table), 2010 WL 200048 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2010). The Iowa Court of Appeals found that the petitioner's trial counsel made an overly general motion for judgment of acquittal and, as a result, error was not preserved. See App'x, Direct Appeal Opinion (docket no. 10-7) at 3.

Because trial counsel failed to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence error, the Iowa Court of Appeals analyzed such error under the rubric of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 3-4. Under that standard, the Iowa Court of Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the petitioner had the requisite mens rea for a conviction of first degree murder. Id. at 4-5. As a result, the Iowa Court of Appeals concluded that the petitioner's trial counsel did not breach an essential duty when he failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. Although the Iowa Court of Appeals did not specifically address the petitioner's pro se arguments regarding the use of a dangerous weapon, it appears that the Iowa Court of Appeals implicitly rejected them when it determined that there was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to find that the petitioner possessed the requisite mens rea. Id.

Aside from rejecting the petitioner's arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the Iowa Court of Appeals rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding (1) the weight of the evidence, including that the State's failure to present DNA or fingerprint evidence required retrial, and (2) the admission of hearsay. Id. at 6-9. Regarding the latter argument, the Iowa Court of Appeals concluded that the admission of the statements that the petitioner identified as improper hearsay was harmless because either the admission of the statements was cumulative of other evidence or the Iowa District Court gave a curative instruction. Id.

Lastly, the Iowa Court of Appeals declined to rule on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning the failure to request certain jury instructions but preserved theissue for post-conviction review. Id. at 9. It did not specifically address the petitioner's pro se argument regarding trial counsel's failure to assert the lack of evidence concerning the use of a dangerous weapon. Id.

On January 22, 2010, the petitioner submitted an application for further review. See App'x, Direct Appeal Application for Further Review (docket no. 10-8). The application asserted that: (1) the Iowa District Court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, (2) the Iowa District Court erred in admitting hearsay evidence and (3) trial counsel unconstitutionally failed to request a corroboration/some evidence aside from confession jury instruction and a self-defense/justification jury instruction. Id. at 13-28. On March 16, 2010, the Iowa Supreme Court denied the petitioner's application for further review. See App'x, Order Denying Further Review (docket no. 10-9). Procedendo issued on March 24, 2010. See App'x, Procedendo (docket no. 10-11) at 96.

C. State Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings

On February 23, 2011, the petitioner applied for post-conviction relief in the Iowa District Court based on four ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims: (1) failure to request a jury instruction that addressed corroboration of the petitioner's self-incriminating statements, (2) failure to request a jury instruction that addressed self-defense, (3) failure to properly move for judgment of acquittal on the basis that insufficient evidence supported the conclusion that he stabbed the victim and (4) failure to adequately present available evidence to support a theory of self-defense and prepare the petitioner to testify on the issue of self-defense. See App'x, Application for Post-Conviction Relief (docket no. 10-11) at 98-101, 106; App'x, Order Denying Post-Conviction Relief (docket no. 10-11) at 128-30. On May 8, 2012, the Iowa District Court denied post-conviction relief. See App'x, Order Denying Post-Conviction Relief (docket no. 10-11) at 128-30.

On May 18, 2012, the petitioner appealed the denial of post-conviction relief; he raised the following ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims: (1) failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct, (2) failure to pursue a justification defense and (3) failure tomove for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the State failed to prove the petitioner caused the victim's death. See App'x, Petitioner's Post-Conviction Appeal Brief (docket no. 10-12). In addition to briefing by the State and further briefing by the petitioner's appellate counsel, see App'x, State's Post-Conviction Appeal Brief (docket no. 10-13); Petitioner's Post-Conviction Appeal Reply Brief (docket no. 10-14), the petitioner filed a pro se reply brief in which he argued that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make a sufficiently specific motion for judgment of acquittal based on the lack of evidence showing he caused the victim's fatal injury, (2) trial counsel should have objected to the jury instructions and (3) the Iowa District Court misinstructed the jury during trial and misapplied the law during post-conviction proceedings. See App'x, Petitioner's Post-Conviction Pro Se Appeal Brief (docket no. 10-15).

On December 5, 2013, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. See App'x, Post-Conviction Relief Appeal Opinion (docket no 10-16); see also Johnson v. State, 842 N.W.2d 679 (Table), 2013 WL 6405158 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013). With regard to the petitioner's argument that trial counsel unconstitutionally failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that the statements in question were not misconduct, which meant trial counsel had no duty to object to them. See App'x, Post-Conviction Relief Appeal Opinion (docket no 10-16) at 6-7. Concerning the petitioner's argument that trial counsel unconstitutionally failed to pursue a justification defense, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that trial counsel had not breached an essential duty because the petitioner insisted that he had not stabbed the victim. Id. at 7-8. The Iowa Court of Appeals stressed that, because a self-defense argument is premised on admitting to killing but asserting a justification for that killing, failure to pursue a justification defense during trial was a reasonable tactical decision by trial counsel. Id. The Iowa Court of Appeals also rejected the petitioner's claim that trial counsel unconstitutionally failed to move for judgment of acquittal based on causation. Id.at 8. It emphasized that sufficient evidence allowed the jury to find that the petitioner caused the victim's death. Id.

Aside from...