Barnett v. Roper, No. 16-1467 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment granting petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief from his death sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that, because the district court's partial grant of petitioner's rule 59(e) motion was not subject to this appeal, the court did not address the merits of the district court's application of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), and its finding of extraordinary circumstances.
The court also held that the district court's finding that petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance was supported by the evidence. Therefore, the district court properly concluded that petitioner established ineffective assistance of counsel. The court agreed with the district court that, as to Ground I, petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion was not a successive claim under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). Finally, the district court did not err in denying respondent's Rule 59(e) motion; the judgment granting habeas relief was not the result of any manifest error; and the motion was not supported by any showing of extraordinary circumstances.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas - Death Penalty. For the court's prior opinion in Barnett's habeas case, see Barnett v. Roper, 541 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2008). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), Barnett filed a Rule 60(b) motion. The district court denied it, concluding Martinez was not a new rule of constitutional law retroactively available on collateral review. Barnett then filed a Rule 59(e) motion asking the court to amend its order on his Rule 60(b) motion; the court granted Barnett's Rule 59(e) motion on one issue and determined that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's failure to sufficiently investigate and present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of his trial. The court granted Barnett habeas relief and ordered the State to sentence Barnett to life without the possibility of parole or grant him a new penalty phase trial. The State appeals. Held: (1) the State did not appeal the order partially granting the Rule 59(e) motion and the court would not address the merits of the district court's application of Martinez and its finding of extraordinary circumstances; (2) the district court did not err in finding Barnett's post-conviction counsel failed to render effective assistance of counsel where his post-conviction pleading failed to properly raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase; Barnett's Rule 60(b) motion with respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not a successive claim under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b). Grant of habeas relief 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.