Miller v. Young

• Decision Date: 18 April 2018
• Docket Number: No. 28287,28287
• Citation: 911 N.W.2d 644
• Parties: Chris Allen MILLER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Darin YOUNG, Warden, S.D. State Penitentiary, Respondent and Appellee.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

911 N.W.2d 644

Chris Allen MILLER, Petitioner and Appellant,

v.Darin YOUNG, Warden, S.D. State Penitentiary, Respondent and Appellee.

No. 28287

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS ON MARCH 19, 2018

OPINION FILED April 18, 2018

JASON RAVNSBORG of Harmelink, Fox & Ravnsborg, Law Office, Yankton, South Dakota, Attorneys for petitioner and appellant.

MARTY J. JACKLEY, Attorney General, KELLY MARNETTE, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for respondent and appellee.

SEVERSON, Justice

[¶ 1.]In this habeas appeal, defendant asserts that the circuit court’s errors in the jury selection process are structural rather than procedural and warrant a new trial.Defendant also claims that his counsel was ineffective at trial and on direct appeal regarding the errors in the jury selection process.We affirm.

Background

[¶ 2.]On January 30, 2013, a jury found Chris Miller guilty of the second-degree murder and aggravated assault of his four-month-old son.We affirmed Miller’s convictions in State v. Miller , 2014 S.D. 49, 851 N.W.2d 703.In November 2014, Miller filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting multiple errors from the underlying case.This appeal concerns Miller’s claim that structural errors occurred during the jury selection process.In Miller’s view, the jury selection process was so fundamentally flawed that it affected the framework within which the trial proceeded, necessitating a new trial.

[¶ 3.]The record reveals that jury selection occurred over the course of two days.The circuit court informed the parties that there would be 12 jurors and 3 alternates.The court also gave each side 22 peremptory strikes.To achieve these numbers, the court determined that there needed to be 59 qualified jurors after voir dire and prior to the strike-down (12 jurors plus 3 alternates plus 44 peremptory strikes equals 59).The court planned to call 200 potential jurors.The potential jurors were assigned a number and divided into four groups, which groups were to be called in four different panels.

[¶ 4.]On January 17, 2013, the first morning of jury selection, 31 potential jurors appeared.After voir dire, 6 jurors were excused for cause, leaving 25 qualified jurors on the clerk’s final juror list.During the afternoon, 39 potential jurors appeared.After voir dire, 10 jurors were excused for cause, leaving 29 qualified jurors on the clerk’s final juror list.With 54 qualified jurors after the first day of jury selection, the court noted that 5 more jurors needed to be qualified during the second day to reach the required 59 qualified jurors.

[¶ 5.]On January 18, the second morning of jury selection, 45 jurors appeared, including juror #108.Juror #108 had been scheduled to appear on the first afternoon of jury selection but did not appear.The record does not indicate why he was absent.After voir dire on the second day, 18 jurors were excused for cause, leaving 27 potential jurors.Because only 5 qualified jurors were needed, the circuit court drew a line on the clerk’s final juror list intending to designate 59 jurors qualified for selection.The court mistakenly drew the line after the 60th qualified name on the list instead of after the 59th name.Neither the parties nor the circuit court were aware of the mistake when it happened.

[¶ 6.]After designating the jurors qualified for selection, the circuit judge gave the State the final juror list and left the courtroom.The parties alternated exercising peremptory strikes, with the State exercising its first strike on the 60th name on the list (juror #117).After both sides used their 22 peremptory strikes, they realized that 16 potential jurors remained, rather than 15 (12 jurors and 3 alternates).The parties brought the error to the circuit court’s attention.The court realized that the 60th name on the list (juror #117) should not have been included because the court intended to include only 59 names on the list.Based on statements made by counsel for the State, the circuit court determined that if the error had not occurred, the State would have stricken juror #108.The court, therefore, suggested that juror #108 be stricken.Miller objected but did not propose a substitute resolution.Ultimately, the court declared the State’s first peremptory strike (juror #117)"invalid" and struck juror #108.

[¶ 7.]Miller’s case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Miller guilty of both offenses.The court sentenced Miller to life in prison for the murder conviction and fifty years in prison for the conviction of aggravated assault, with the sentences to be served consecutively.Although Miller appealed, he did not challenge the jury selection process.He, however, asserted to the habeas court that appellate counsel was ineffective on direct appeal for failing to challenge the jury selection process.

[¶ 8.]After a hearing on Miller’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the habeas court issued 145 findings of fact and 157 conclusions of law.The court recognized that the circuit court had unilaterally decided to give each side 22 rather than 20 peremptory challenges without a motion by either party as required by SDCL 23A-20-23.The habeas court further noted that the circuit court’s use of a hybrid-juror-selection process "resulted in more jurors than necessary being passed for cause" on January 18.The habeas court held that the circuit court’s decision to "remove another juror [ (juror #108) ] that was selected by the State, after all other peremptory challenges had been used by both parties, violated SDCL § 23A-20-25 as the trial court effectively granted the State an additional peremptory challenge."

[¶ 9.]After identifying the circuit court’s errors, the habeas court examined whether the errors were structural.In the habeas court’s view, errors involving the use of peremptory strikes "have historically been subject to a harmless error analysis in the United States Supreme Court and other state courts."The court distinguished State v. Blem , 2000 S.D. 69, 610 N.W.2d 803, and concluded that Blem"applies to jury selection errors that involve the defendant’s right to have jurors subject to voir dire."Because "Miller does not and cannot contend that he and his counsel did not or were not allowed to question all prospective jurors," and because all prospective jurors were passed for cause, the habeas court concluded that the fairness and impartiality of the jury was not called into question by the circuit court’s errors.The habeas court, therefore, held that the errors in the jury selection process were not structural.

[¶ 10.]The habeas court then reviewed whether the procedural errors were harmless.The court reiterated that all the jurors were questioned and passed for cause.The court again identified the circuit court’s errors:

a. The trial court ordered an additional 4 peremptory challenges (2 to each side) in violation of SDCL § 23A-20-20, without a motion or good cause showing as required by SDCL § 23A-20-23.

b. By striking Juror 108, the trial court effectively allowed the State to have an additional peremptory challenge after all peremptory challenges had been waived or exercised by the parties in violation of SDCL § 23A-20-20, without a motion or good cause showing as required by SDCL § 23A-20-23.

The habeas court concluded that even though the circuit court granted each side 22 rather than 20 peremptory strikes, Miller did not prove prejudice because he had been tried by an impartial jury.The court likewise held that Miller failed to prove that counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to object to the additional peremptory strikes or to the court’s use of the hybrid-jury-selection process.The habeas court"noted that the trial court was not present during the peremptory challenge strike-down process."The court then correctly observed that the judge "should have been present during the exercise of the peremptory challenges," citing State v. Arguello , 2015 S.D. 103, ¶ 11, 873 N.W.2d 490, 495.Although the jurors were not present, "there are Batson issues and other matters that can arise during the exercise of peremptory challenges by the parties that the court should be present to observe."Nevertheless, although the judge should have been present, the habeas court found that Miller failed to prove prejudice from the circuit judge’s absence.

[¶ 11.]The habeas court quashed the provisional writ but granted Miller a certificate of probable cause on the issue of jury selection.On appeal, Miller asserts:

1.The errors in the jury selection process warrant a new trial.

2.Counsel was ineffective at trial and during Miller’s direct appeal for failing to challenge the jury selection process.

Standard of Review

[¶ 12.]"Our review of habeas corpus proceedings is limited because it ‘is a collateral attack on a final judgment.’ "Vanden Hoek v. Weber , 2006 S.D. 102, ¶ 8, 724 N.W.2d 858, 861(quotingCrutchfield v. Weber , 2005 S.D. 62, ¶ 8, 697 N.W.2d 756, 759 )."Accordingly, ‘habeas corpus can be used only to review (1) whether the court has jurisdiction of the crime and the person of the defendant; (2) whether the sentence was authorized by law; and (3) in certain cases whether an incarcerated defendant has been deprived of basic constitutional rights.’ "Oleson v. Young , 2015 S.D. 73, ¶ 5, 869 N.W.2d 452, 455(quotingMcDonough v. Weber , 2015 S.D. 1, ¶ 15, 859 N.W.2d 26, 34 )."Whether a defendant has received ineffective assistance of counsel is essentially a mixed question of law and fact."Baldridge v. Weber , 2008 S.D. 14, ¶ 21, 746 N.W.2d 12, 17(quotingRodriguez v. Weber , 2000 S.D. 128, ¶ 28, 617 N.W.2d 132, 142 ).

Analysis

1.Jury Selection Process

[¶ 13.]Miller avers that the errors in the jury selection process affected the framework within which his trial proceeded and thereby constituted structural errors.The errors Miller specifically challenges on appeal include: (1)the circuit court did not...