Langdeaux v. Lund
| Decision Date | 21 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. C12-4081-MWB,C12-4081-MWB |
| Parties | JAMES WILLIAM LANGDEAUX, Petitioner, v. MARK LUND, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Petitioner James William Langdeaux's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody is before me pursuant to a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand recommending that the petition be denied. Langdeaux has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. I now consider whether to accept, reject, or modify Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation in light of Langdeaux's objections.
Absent rebuttal by clear and convincing evidence, I must presume that any factual determinations made by a state court in a state prisoner's criminal and post-conviction relief cases were correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see Bell v. Norris, 586 F.3d 624, 630 (8th Cir. 2009) (). Judge Strand summarized the facts of the crime underlying Langdeaux's conviction, as follows:
Report and Recommendation at 2-3. No objections have been made to Judge Strand's factual findings. After reviewing the record, I adopt all of Judge Strand's factual findings.
a. Trial and appeal
Langdeaux was charged with first-degree murder under the alternative theories of premeditated murder or while participating in a forcible felony. He was also charged with going armed with intent. A week before trial, the state offered a plea deal for Langdeaux to plead guilty to second degree murder. Langdeaux rejected the proposed plea and proceeded to trial.
At trial, Langdeaux offered self-defense and intoxication defenses. Langdeaux testified that he felt threatened by Krogman and Johnson and pulled his knife in order to defend himself. On March 31, 1988, the jury convicted Langdeaux of murder in the first degree and going armed with intent. Langdeaux was subsequently sentenced to a life term of imprisonment without parole.
Langdeaux appealed his convictions to the Iowa Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals. On appeal, Langdeaux argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in two respects. First, he challenged his trial counsel's failure to timely object to a felony murder jury instruction with willful injury as the underlying felony. Second, he contended that his trial counsel failed to challengeone of the jurors for cause. On August 23, 1989, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed Langdeaux's convictions. See State v. Langdeaux, Sup. Ct. No. 88-852, at *8, 455 N.W.2d 301 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 23, 1989) (unpublished table decision). The court of appeals noted that, although ineffective assistance claims are generally reserved for postconviction proceedings, State v. Ueding, 400 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 1987), Langdeaux's claims could be resolved on direct appeal because the record adequately presented them. Langdeaux, Sup. Ct. No. 88-852, at *3, 455 N.W.2d 301. The court of appeals concluded that Langdeaux's trial counsel's actions were reasonable and within the range of normal competency and denied Langdeaux's claims. Id. at *5,* 8, 455 N.W.2d 301.
b. Post-conviction relief applications
Langdeaux proceeded to bring a series of applications for post-conviction relief ("PCR") in the Iowa courts. Langdeaux brought his first PCR application on May 30, 1990. The Iowa district court dismissed the application, concluding that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in it had been decided on direct appeal. Langdeaux appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The Iowa Court of Appeals found that not all of the issues had been decided on direct appeal, but nonetheless affirmed because the record was sufficient to permit it to decide the issue raised in the application. Langdeaux v. State, Sup. Ct. No. 90-1160, at *3, 485 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 26, 1991) (unpublished table decision). The court of appeals concluded that Langdeaux's claim, that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to learn the underlying forcible felony prior to trial, failed because his trial counsel knew before trial that the prosecution intended to rely on willful injury as the underlying felony. Id., 485 N.W.2d 107.
Langdeaux brought a second PCR application on May 19, 1992. The state filed amotion to dismiss, which was summarily granted without notice or hearing. Langdeaux appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to conduct a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Langdeaux subsequently sought appointed counsel and filed a pro se motion to amend. The Iowa district court appointed counsel for Langdeaux. Langdeaux's PCR counsel then sought to amend Langdeaux's second PCR application. The state, in turn, renewed its motion to dismiss. The district court interpreted the Iowa Supreme Court's remand order to limit its consideration to the original motion to dismiss. Following a hearing, the court granted the state's motion to dismiss and denied all other pending motions as moot. Langdeaux again appealed. Counsel was appointed for Langdeaux. On June 27, 1995, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to consider Langdeaux's various motions and the state's renewed motion to dismiss.
Nothing further occurred until January 31, 1997, when Langdeaux filed a pro se supplemental application for post-conviction relief and a motion to personally appear at all further proceedings in his case. The state filed a motion to strike the supplemental application and resisted the motion to personally appear. A hearing on all...
To continue reading
Request your trial