Lay v. Sevier
Decision Date | 21 December 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 1:19-cv-03738-JMS-MPB,1:19-cv-03738-JMS-MPB |
Parties | EDWARD LAY, Petitioner, v. MARK SEVIER Warden, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Petitioner Edward Lay was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder in an Indiana state court. Mr. Lay now seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Lay alleges that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. However, the Indiana Court of Appeals reasonably applied federal law in Mr. Lay's direct and post-conviction appeals. Therefore, Mr. Lay's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, and a certificate of appealability will not issue.
Federal habeas review requires the Court to "presume that the state court's factual determinations are correct unless the petitioner rebuts the presumption by clear and convincing evidence." Perez-Gonzalez v. Lashbrook, 904 F.3d 557, 562 (7th Cir. 2018); see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). On direct appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals summarized the relevant facts as follows:
Lay v. State, 986 N.E. 2d 865, 2013 WL 1838514, *1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2013) ("Lay I") ( ). Mr. Lay was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder and sentenced to 140 years. Id. On direct appeal, he challenged the trial court's handling of a juror question, the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, and the appropriateness of his sentence. Id. at *3-8. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Lay's convictions and sentence, and the Indiana Supreme Court denied his petition for transfer. Dkt. 7-2 at 4.
Following his direct appeal, Mr. Lay filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state court. He asserted that both his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. Lay v. State, 124 N.E.3d 648, 2019 WL 1721687 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2019) ("Lay II"). The trial court denied Mr. Lay's petition following a hearing, and the Indiana Court ofAppeals affirmed. Id. at *11. The Indiana Supreme Court denied Mr. Lay's petition to transfer. Dkt. 7-9 at 6.
Mr. Lay filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus on September 3, 2019. He alleges (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court violated his right to due process with how it handled a jury question; and (3) that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in various respects. Dkt. 1.
A federal court may grant habeas relief only if the petitioner demonstrates that he is in custody "in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") directs how the Court must consider petitions for habeas relief under § 2254. "In considering habeas corpus petitions challenging state court convictions, [the Court's] review is governed (and greatly limited) by AEDPA." Dassey v. Dittmann, 877 F.3d 297, 301 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "The standards in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were designed to prevent federal habeas retrials and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
A federal habeas court cannot grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of a federal claim on the merits:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
"The decision federal courts look to is the last reasoned state-court decision to decide the merits of the case, even if the state's supreme court then denied discretionary review." Dassey, 877 F.3d at 302. "Deciding whether a state court's decision 'involved' an unreasonable application of federal law or 'was based on' an unreasonable determination of fact requires the federal habeas court to train its attention on the particular reasons—both legal and factual—why state courts rejected a state prisoner's federal claims, and to give appropriate deference to that decision[.]" Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1191-92 (2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "This is a straightforward inquiry when the last state court to decide a prisoner's federal claim explains its decision on the merits in a reasoned opinion." Id. "In that case, a federal habeas court simply reviews the specific reasons given by the state court and defers to those reasons if they are reasonable." Id.
"For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). "A state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as fairminded...
To continue reading
Request your trial