Rufus v. Sayler, Case No. 1:17-cv-96
| Decision Date | 21 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:17-cv-96 |
| Parties | Galen P. Rufus, Petitioner, v. James Sayler, Warden of the Missouri River Correctional Center, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota |
Before the court is a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner, Galen Rufus ("Rufus").1 (Doc. No. 1). Also before the court is a Motion to Dismiss by respondent, James Sayler ("the State"). (Doc. No. 16).
On November 7, 2013, Rufus was charged in state district court by way of information with (1) human trafficking, a class AA felony; (2) unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a class B felony; (3) unlawful possession of morphine, a class C felony; (4) unlawful possession of hydrocodone, a class C felony; and (5) unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a class A misdemeanor. (Doc. No. 15-2). Rufus pled guilty to counts (2), (3), and (5). (Doc. No. 15-1). The State dismissed count (4). Rufus waived his right to a jury trial as to the human trafficking charge. (Doc. No. 15-3). After a bench trial, the state district court found Rufus guilty of human trafficking.(Doc. No. 15-4). The state district court sentenced Rufus to ten years' imprisonment, with five years suspended and with five years of probation to follow. (Doc. No. 15-5).
Rufus appealed his conviction on the human trafficking charge to the North Dakota Supreme Court on October 27, 2014. (Doc. No. 15-1). In that appeal, Rufus argued: (1) the record did not support the state district court's findings of fact; (2) insufficient evidence supported his conviction with respect to (a) whether he would have caused the minor child to engage in sexual conduct, (b) whether he completed a substantial step towards committing the crime, and (c) whether he acted with the requisite culpability; and (3) his charge should not have been classified as a class AA felony. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the record supported the state district court's findings of fact, sufficient evidence justified his conviction, and his charge was properly classified as a class AA felony. State v. Rufus, 2015 ND 212, 868 N.W.2d 534. ("Rufus I"). The court issued its mandate on September 23, 2015. (Doc. No. 15-1).
Rufus filed an application for postconviction relief with the state district court on October 23, 2015. (Doc. No. 15-9). That application asserted multiple claims for relief. Of those claims, the state district court construed Rufus's application as raising ineffective assistance of counsel2 claims as to: (1) failure to demand a change in judge; (2) failure to request a change in venue; (3) wrongful waiver of trial by jury; (4) failure to present an entrapment defense; and (5) failure to keepRufus apprised of his case. (Doc. Nos. 15-11; 15-13). Rufus also asserted a due process violation, alleging the State charged him on information it "knew or should have known came from Outrageous Police Conduct (entrapment)." (Doc. No. 15-10). Finally, Rufus alleged he was denied a fair trial because the presiding judge was biased. (Doc. No. 15-10).
Prior to an evidentiary hearing on the application, the court summarily dismissed two of Rufus's claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. First, the court concluded trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a change in judge because the time for doing so had already lapsed by the time trial counsel began representing Rufus. (Doc. No. 15-11 p. 7). Second, the court concluded trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a change in venue because a change in venue is only relevant for a jury trial, a right Rufus had previously waived. (Doc. No. 15-11). The state district court allowed the remainder of Rufus's claims to proceed to an evidentiary hearing, which the court held on November 10, 2016. (Doc. No. 15-12).
After the evidentiary hearing, Rufus moved to amend his application for postconviction relief to include ten additional claims. (Doc. No. 18 pp. 37-57). Rufus argued allowing this amendment was appropriate because the evidence and testimony provided at the evidentiary hearing supported those claims. (Doc. No. 18 p. 32). Because that information was already before the court, Rufus argued no further hearings were necessary and the State would not be prejudiced. The state district court denied Rufus's motion to amend his application, concluding the issues raised therein were not raised at the evidentiary hearing and allowing the amended application would be unfair. (Doc. No. 15-13).
As to the claims raised in the original application, the court found such claims unfounded. The court concluded trial counsel was not ineffective for waiving Rufus's right to a jury trial becausethat decision was a matter of trial strategy, trial counsel explained that decision to Rufus, and Rufus ultimately agreed to that strategy. The court also concluded trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present an entrapment defense because that decision was a matter of trial strategy and trial counsel felt Rufus's best chance of an acquittal rested on a legal defense that entrapment would contradict. Finally, the court concluded Rufus had not borne his burden of establishing trial counsel's lack of communication affected the outcome of his trial. As to the due process claim, the court concluded Rufus had not substantiated his claims of prosecutorial misconduct. As to the fair trial claim, the court concluded Rufus failed to prove up his claim of bias by the presiding judge. The state district court denied Rufus's petition in its entirety on December 8, 2016.
Rufus appealed that order on December 22, 2016. (Doc. No. 15-9). In that appeal, Rufus faulted the state district court for not allowing him to amend his application. (Doc. No. 15-14). He also included the ten claims, issue by issue, he sought to include in his proposed amended application. The State responded by arguing the state district court properly denied Rufus's motion. (Doc. No. 15-15). The State also argued many of the issues Rufus raised were not addressed in the postconviction proceeding or were addressed in the underlying criminal case. (Doc. No. 15-15). In an unpublished opinion, the North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed the denial of Rufus's application for postconviction relief on May 4, 2017. Rufus v. State, 2017 ND 83, 894 N.W.2d 908.
Rufus next filed his § 2254 petition with this court on May 12, 2017. (Doc. No. 1). In the petition itself, Rufus raises twelve grounds for relief. (Doc. Nos. 1, 4). In grounds one and twelve, he alleges N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-40 was unconstitutional under N.D. Const. art. IV, § 13, thus voiding both his drug and human trafficking convictions. In ground two, Rufus alleges he suffered a denialof his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because his conditions of confinement limited his ability to effectively communicate with his counsel. In ground three, Rufus alleges he was entrapped by what he characterizes as outrageous police conduct. In ground four, Rufus alleges the State secured his conviction through the use of inadmissible evidence. Grounds five, six, eight, and ten generally allege there was insufficient evidence to convict Rufus of human trafficking. Ground seven contains multiple claims relating to the lack of a victim and the State's conduct. Ground nine focuses on the legislative repealing and replacing of N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-40. Ground eleven alleges the North Dakota state courts wrongly applied the culpability requirement for a human trafficking charge. Additionally, Rufus incorporates the brief he submitted to the North Dakota Supreme Court in alleging ten additional grounds for relief, making a total of twenty-three claims for habeas relief.3
The following factual summary, taken verbatim from the decision of the North Dakota Supreme Court at Rufus I, at ¶¶ 2-3, provides context in evaluating this petition:
To continue reading
Request your trial