Shawn Shelton v. Terry Mapes, No. 15-1015 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseIn his second trial, petitioner was again convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner alleged that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object to a jury instruction regarding his justification defense. The court concluded that counsel's failure to object to the jury instruction was not prejudicial under Strickland v. Washington in light of the overwhelming evidence against petitioner. Therefore, the state court’s determination under Strickland was not unreasonable regarding counsel’s failure to object to the jury instruction, and there is no structural error in this case. Petitioner also alleged that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to a jury instruction that incorrectly stated that it was defendant who fired that shot that caused the victim's death. The court concluded that the error was not prejudicial; the state court's decision was not unreasonable; and that habeas relief will not be granted based on the cumulative effect of attorney errors. The court rejected defendant's additional arguments and affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Chief Judge Riley and Smith, Circuit Judges] . Habeas Case - State Habeas. District court did not err in denying claims of ineffective assistance of counsel relating to counsel's failure to object to two jury instructions. The jury instruction relating to his justification defense, although an incorrect statement of Iowa law, the instruction was not prejudicial in light of the overwhelming evidence against Shelton; the adjudication of the claim by the state appellate court was not based on an unreasonable determination of facts and the determination under Strickland was not unreasonable; neither was the error a structural error. The state's decision that counsel's failure to object to a misstatement in jury instruction No. 27 was not prejudicial was also not unreasonable. Habeas relief will not be granted on the accumulation of attorney errors. Denial of habeas is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.