White v. Dingle
Decision Date | 02 July 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 13–1203.,13–1203. |
Citation | 757 F.3d 750 |
Parties | Tyrone WHITE, Petitioner–Appellant v. Lynn DINGLE, Respondent–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jennifer Marie Macaulay, argued, Saint Paul, MN, for Appellant.
Matthew Frank, AAG, argued, Saint Paul, MN, for Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Tyrone James White was convicted in Minnesota state court of first-degree felony murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder. The district court 1 denied his § 2254 petition. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
After a jury trial, White was convicted of first-degree felony murder and attempted first-degree murder in violation of Minn. Stats. §§ 609.17, 609.185(a)(1), and 609.185(a)(3). The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. State v. White, 684 N.W.2d 500 (Minn.2004).
White petitioned for post-conviction relief in state court. The trial court summarily denied the petition. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. White v. State, 711 N.W.2d 106 (Minn.2006).
White petitioned for post-conviction relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust claims. This court affirmed. White v. Dingle, 267 Fed.Appx. 489 (8th Cir.2008). White moved to amend his petition. The district court denied amendment. He appealed. This court remanded, authorizing amendment. White v. Dingle, 616 F.3d 844 (8th Cir.2010).
On remand, the district court denied relief. It granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim alleging a juror conflict. White moved to expand the COA. This court denied the motion. He appeals pursuant to the COA, renewing his request for expansion.
Reviewing the denial of a § 2254 petition, this court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Evans v. Luebbers, 371 F.3d 438, 441 (8th Cir.2004).
A federal court “shall not” grant habeas relief unless the state court adjudication:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
“To state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate that (1) ‘counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness;’ and (2) ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’ ” Miller v. Dormire, 310 F.3d 600, 602 (8th Cir.2002), quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The first prong requires a showing “that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The second prong requires a showing that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
White claims that his counsel was ineffective by failing to discover that the jury foreperson, Martha Dixon, worked at the same casino as the victim's roommate, Theresa Hindsley. He contends that the Minnesota Supreme Court erred in reviewing this claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court said:
White asserts that the victim's roommate was a blackjack dealer at a casino where the foreperson was employed as a supervisor. White bases this claim on a statement allegedly made by the victim's roommate to an investigator with the Duluth Police Department, in which the victim's roommate said she was at work at the casino at the time of the shooting. We can find no statement or report mentioning such a statement in the district court record, and White did not attach any such statement or report to his petition. If the victim's roommate was in fact employed at the casino and the foreperson knew her, it is possible that the foreperson had previous knowledge about the case that prevented her from being impartial. Nevertheless, because White failed to provide evidence to support his claim that the foreperson was unable to be impartial, we cannot conclude that White's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Schwarti2 hearing.
In fact, a police report from the day after the murder states “HINDSLEY said that she works at the Fond–Du–Luh Casino.” As the Magistrate Judge mentioned in the Report and Recommendation (R & R):
A police report dated April 25, 2001 completed by Duluth Police Officer Joel Don Olejnicak (“Officer Olejnicak”) was contained in the state's first set of pretrial disclosures. (Coates Aff. at Ex. C at 2); (Disclosures CD, vol. 2 at 63–68, vol. 10 at 209–11). On the third page of the police report, Officer Olejnicak wrote:
I also spoke with THERESA LYNN HINDSLEY, DOB/03–1–80. HINDSLEY said she is a roommate of CARLSON and had been living there for approximately two weeks. HINDSLEY said that she works at the Fond–Du–Luth Casino and had left for work at approximately 1530 hours and had not been at the residence since then. HINDSLEY said when she left the residence, CARLSON was the only person there.
( Id.); [Doc. No. 77 at 3]. At trial, Mr. Whitlock and Mr. DeSanto apparently referred to this report in examining Officer Olejnicak. (Admin. R. at 1898, 1916). The report, however, was not identified in a trial exhibit list and the Court is unsure as to whether the report was marked for identification at trial.
....
Notwithstanding the Minnesota Supreme Court's assertion to the contrary, the record does in fact contain documents, independent of White's post-conviction private investigator's letter, that connect Dixon and Hindsley. White II, 711 N.W.2d at 112. Thus, the MinnesotaSupreme Court may not have considered all facts relevant to White's claim.
White v. Dingle, No. 06–CV–1343, 2012 WL 6853473, at *21 (D.Minn. Aug. 7, 2012) ( Magistrate R & R), adopted by No. 06–CV–1343, 2013 WL 146512 (Jan. 14, 2013).
The district court issued a COA under the language of § 2254(d)(1):
Was it contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States for the Minnesota Supreme Court to reject petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the possible bias of juror Martha Dixon?
White, 2013 WL 146512, at *1. Under § 2254(d)(1), a state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law when the state court (1) “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by Court on a question of law;” or (2) “decides a case differently than Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). A decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law when the state court “identifies the correct governing legal principle from Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.” Id. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495. “[A] federal habeas court making the ‘unreasonable application’ inquiry should ask whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495.
The R & R—adopted by the district court—said:
Based on the facts available to him, Mr. Whitlock should have further investigated Dixon's background on voir dire. Specifically, he should have discovered the link between Dixon and Hindsley and requested a Schwartz hearing to investigate whether Dixon was truthful when she stated she did not know anyone on the witness list. Nevertheless, his failure does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. To expect trial counsel to conduct an investigation as to the impartiality of every juror, even those who repeatedly and unequivocally state their impartiality on voir dire misconstrues Strickland. Moreover, Hindsley did not testify, nor were she and Dixon familially related. Stated another way, the connection between Dixon and Hindsley was more tenuous than the relationship between the Williams juror and her ex-husband. Though Mr. Whitlock's representation can be criticized in hindsight, his failure to request a Schwartz hearing or further investigate the connection between Dixon and Hindsley did not render him ineffective under Strickland.
The Court finds that the first prong of Strickland was not met.
Magistrate R & R,2012 WL 6853473, at *23.
In Williams v. Taylor, the defendant discovered after trial that the jury foreperson failed to disclose that she was the ex-wife of the prosecution's lead-off witness (a deputy sheriff). Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 441–43, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Court said, Id. at 443, 120 S.Ct. 1479.
White argues Williams is distinguishable because additional investigation was unnecessary to discover Dixon's and Hindsley's connection. White asserts: “Here, the evidence of the relationship between Hindsley and Dixon was apparent from the records available to trial counsel.” The question here, he maintains, is: Whether, in light of the information available to trial counsel, counsel should have further investigated the connection between Dixon and Hindsley.
As the district court acknowledged, White's counsel should...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tisius v. Jennings, Case No. 4:17-cv-00426-SRB
...law;' or (2) 'decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." White v. Dingle, 757 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 405). "A decision is an 'unreasonable application' of clearly established federal law when......
-
Sadipe v. United States
...of the information available to trial counsel, counsel should have further investigated" the potential for juror bias. White v. Dingle, 757 F.3d 750, 753 (8th Cir. 2014). The only evidence in the record is that the court and the partiesbelieved, after voir dire, that the juror could be impa......
-
Turner v. Cassady
..."clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonablefactfinder would have found" Petitioner guilty. White v. Dingle, 757 F.3d 750, 757 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). Petitioner's claims do not meet this standard; thus, the Court will not grant an......
-
Gunter v. Mesmer
...law;' or (2) 'decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.'" White v. Dingle, 757 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 413 (2000)). A state court decision is an "unreasonable application" of cl......
-
Review Proceedings
...2019) (circuit court retains authority to expand scope of COA); Welch v. Hepp, 793 F.3d 734, 737 (7th Cir. 2015) (same); White v. Dingle, 757 F.3d 750, 755 (8th Cir. 2014) (same); Clark v. Chappell, 936 F.3d 944, 983 (9th Cir. 2019) (circuit court expanded COA to include claims that met thr......