Rhines v. Weber

• Decision Date: 09 February 2000
• Docket Number: No. 20816.,20816.
• Citation: 608 N.W.2d 303,2000 SD 19
• Parties: Charles Russell RHINES, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Douglas WEBER, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, Appellee.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

608 N.W.2d 303

2000 SD 19

Charles Russell RHINES, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Douglas WEBER, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 20816.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued September 16, 1999.

Decided February 9, 2000.

Michael W. Hanson, Sioux Falls, for petitioner and appellant.

Mark Barnett, Attorney General, Craig M. Eichstadt, Deputy Attorney General, Grant Gormley, Gary Campbell and Sherri Sundem Wald, Assistant Attorneys General, Pierre, for appellee.

JAMES W. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

[¶ 1.] Charles Russell Rhines (Rhines) appeals from a circuit court judgment denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶ 2.] A full review of the facts can be found in this Court's previous opinion affirming Rhines' conviction and sentence. State v. Rhines, 1996 SD 55, 548 N.W.2d 415, cert. denied, Rhines v. South Dakota, 519 U.S. 1013, 117 S.Ct. 522, 136 L.Ed.2d 410 (1996). Only those facts relevant to Rhines' present appeal of the denial of habeas corpus will be reiterated in this opinion.

[¶ 3.] From late 1991 until he was terminated in February 1992, Rhines worked at the Dig `Em Donut Shop on West Main Street in Rapid City, South Dakota. On March 8, 1992, the body of Donnivan Schaeffer, an employee of Dig `Em Donuts, was found in the back storeroom of the donut shop. Schaeffer's hands had been bound, and he had been stabbed in the abdomen, upper back, and the back of the neck. Approximately $3,300 in cash, coins, and checks was missing from the store.

[¶ 4.] On July 27, 1992, Rhines was indicted by a Pennington County grand jury in connection with the burglary at Dig Em' Donuts and the murder of Schaeffer. Trial commenced on January 4, 1993, with Rhines being represented by Wayne Gilbert, Joseph Butler, and Michael Stonefield. On January 22, 1993, the jury found Rhines guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and third-degree burglary.

[¶ 5.] On January 26, 1993, the same jury sentenced Rhines to death by lethal injection for the first-degree murder conviction, having found four aggravating circumstances in connection with Schaeffer's death: (1) the offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest under SDCL 23A-27A-1(9); (2) the offense was committed for the purpose of receiving money under SDCL 23A-27A-1(3); (3) the offense was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture under SDCL 23A-27A-1(6); and (4) the offense was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved depravity of the mind under SDCL 23A-27A-1(6).

[¶ 6.] Thereafter, Rhines' trial counsel were appointed to represent him on appeal of his conviction and sentence to this Court. In that appeal, we ruled that the sentencing jury's discretion was not adequately channeled by the "depravity of the mind" aggravating circumstance, as limited by the trial court's instruction. Rhines, 1996 SD 55, ¶ 148, 548 N.W.2d at 449. However, we held that "the invalidity of the `depravity of the mind' circumstance d[id] not so taint the penalty proceedings as to mandate reversal of Rhines' death sentence." Id. at ¶ 169, 548 N.W.2d at 453. Accordingly, this Court affirmed Rhines' conviction and death sentence.

[¶ 7.] Subsequently, Rhines filed an application for writ of habeas corpus. The Honorable Merton Tice Jr. denied the application and quashed the writ in a written opinion dated October 8, 1998. Additional facts will be recited herein as they relate to specific issues.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 8.] The remedy of a writ of habeas corpus "is in the nature of a collateral attack on a final judgment, therefore, our scope of review is limited." Black v. Class, 1997 SD 22, ¶ 4, 560 N.W.2d 544, 546.

Habeas corpus can be used only to review (1) whether the court had 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. For purposes of habeas corpus, constitutional violations in a criminal case deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.

Siers v. Class, 1998 SD 77, ¶ 9, 581 N.W.2d 491, 494 (quoting Black, 1997 SD 22, ¶ 4, 560 N.W.2d at 546). Moreover, "[h]abeas corpus is available only where the defendant is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty." Loop v. Class, 1996 SD 107, ¶ 11, 554 N.W.2d 189, 191 (quoting Two Eagle v. Leapley, 522 N.W.2d 765, 768 (S.D.1994)).

[¶ 9.] We have also stated:

Habeas corpus is not a substitute for direct review ... The habeas petitioner has the initial burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief. The habeas court's factual findings are given `considerable deference' and we will not reverse these findings unless they are clearly erroneous.

Siers, 1998 SD 77, ¶¶ 9-10, 581 N.W.2d at 494 (citations omitted).

[¶ 10.] In regard to ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the following standard applies:

Whether a defendant has received ineffective assistance of counsel is essentially a mixed question of law and fact. In the absence of a clearly erroneous determination by the circuit court, we must defer to its findings on such primary facts regarding what defense counsel did or did not do in preparation for trial and in ... presentation of the defense at trial. This court, however, may substitute its own judgment for that of the circuit court as to whether defense counsel's actions or inactions constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Loop, 1996 SD 107, ¶ 11, 554 N.W.2d at 191 (quoting Aliberti v. Solem, 428 N.W.2d 638, 640 (S.D.1988)).

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

ISSUE ONE

[¶ 11.] Whether the circuit court erred in denying Rhines' application for writ of habeas corpus based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

[¶ 12.] The Sixth Amendment "right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2063, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 692 (1984) (emphasis added). "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result." Id., 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 692-93.

[¶ 13.] This Court applies a two-prong test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims. In order to meet the burden of proof for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove (1) that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that such deficiency prejudiced the defendant. Siers, 1998 SD 77, ¶ 12, 581 N.W.2d at 495; Sprik v. Class, 1997 SD 134, ¶ 22, 572 N.W.2d 824, 829; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693.

[¶ 14.] In regard to the first prong of this test, an objective standard of reasonableness, counsel's errors must be "so serious that [he or she] was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed ... by the Sixth Amendment." Garritsen v. Leapley, 541 N.W.2d 89, 93 (S.D.1995) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693))). As a result, "[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d at 694. A defendant asking this Court to invoke such scrutiny carries a heavy burden:

Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.

Loop, 1996 SD 107, ¶ 14, 554 N.W.2d at 192 (emphasis added) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d at 694-95). Moreover, "every effort [must] be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d at 694. "The reasonableness of counsel's performance is to be evaluated from counsel's perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances." Phyle v. Leapley, 491 N.W.2d 429, 433 (S.D.1992) (quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2586, 91 L.Ed.2d 305, 323 (1986)), overruled on other grounds by Hopfinger v. Leapley, 511 N.W.2d 845, 847 (S.D.1994)

.

[¶ 15.] In regard to the second prong of the test, prejudice to the defendant, this Court must focus on whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable, not merely on whether the outcome would have been different. Siers, 1998 SD 77, ¶ 12,581 N.W.2d at 495; Sprik, 1997 SD 134, ¶ 22,572 N.W.2d at 829; Loop, 1996 SD 107, ¶ 15,554 N.W.2d at 192; Hopfinger, 511 N.W.2d at 847. The law does not entitle the defendant to have his conviction set aside "solely because the outcome would have been different but for the counsel's error." Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369-70, 113 S.Ct. 838, 842-43, 122 L.Ed.2d 180, 189 (1993). Rather, "counsel's errors [must be] so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687,104 S.Ct. at 2064,80 L.Ed.2d at 693.

[¶ 16.] With these principles in mind, we now examine Rhines' claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial and original appeal.¹

A. Whether counsel were ineffective because they did not attempt to suppress Rhines' confession on grounds that it was induced by a false promise and thereby coerced and involuntary.

[¶ 17.] Rhines was arrested in King County, Washington, at approximately 12:45 p.m. on June 19, 1992, for a burglary that occurred in that state. After being read a Miranda warning, Rhines asked something to the effect of, "[t]hose two detectives from South Dakota are here, aren't they?" Rhines was asked no further questions...