Rogers v. Doom, 10-5072
| Decision Date | 23 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-5072,10-5072 |
| Parties | CHARLES R. ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NANCY DOOM, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Charles R. Rogers, a Kentucky state prisoner, appeals a district court judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In 2004, Rogers was charged with first-degree rape, and a jury trial was held. The evidence at trial showed that Rogers and the victim had previously had a sexual relationship, which the victim had ended. On the day of the crime, the victim's birthday, they were drinking at her home. The victim testified that Rogers handcuffed her, beat her, and raped her. The victim's son arrived, causing Rogers to leave, and the son discovered the victim still handcuffed and severely beaten. She was taken to the hospital by the police. A rape kit showed no DNA from Rogers, and the physical examination did not provide evidence of a rape. Physical evidence was also subsequently obtained from Rogers, revealing the victim's blood on his underwear, apparently from a cut lip she incurredin the beating. Rogers admitted handcuffing and beating the victim, but denied that raping her. The jury, however, believed the victim and found Rogers guilty of first-degree rape. He was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. His conviction was upheld on direct appeal in the state courts. He then filed for state post-conviction relief, raising a number of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Relief was denied by the state courts without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Rogers filed for federal habeas corpus relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The claims that had been exhausted in the state courts included allegations that counsel failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation, call allegedly exculpatory witnesses, call a forensic expert, present a defense, impeach the prosecution witnesses, or object to certain testimony. A magistrate judge recommended that the petition be denied, and the district court adopted this recommendation over Rogers's objections.
On appeal, Rogers argues that his counsel's poor cross-examination of the government's expert witnesses supports his claim that his attorney failed to adequately investigate his case and failed to present a defense. He further argues that the district court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. He contends that he must have such a hearing on this claim in order for us to be able to properly review this claim. But he is mistaken. This is a case where we are able to effectively review his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on the record before us. See Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1998) (); Wilcher v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 872, 877 (5th Cir. 1992) (). Because we areable to properly review Rogers's ineffective-assistance claim, we do not need to decide what impact, if any, Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011), has on this case.
Under AEDPA, a federal court may not grant habeas relief on a claim adjudicated on the merits in the state courts unless the state court's ruling "was (1) 'contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States'; or (2) 'based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.'" Wogenstahl v. Mitchell, 668 F.3d 307, 320 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)).
To find that Rogers received ineffective assistance of counsel, his counsel's...
To continue reading
Request your trial