Stokke v. Belleque
Filing
32
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION - The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be DENIED and a judgment of DISMISSAL should be entered. Objections, if any, are due by 11/12/09. If a party files objections, another party may file a response to those objections within 10 days of the filing date of the objections. This matter will be referred to a U.S. District Judge for review. (peg) (peg).
<![CDATA[
IN T H E UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N T R O Y D A N I E L STOKKE, Civil No. 07-1174-AC Petitioner, FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
v.
B R I A N BELLEQUE, Respondent. A N T H O N Y D. B O R N S T E I N Assistant Federal Public Defender 101 S W M a i n Street S u i t e 1700 P o r t l a n d , O R 97204 A t t o r n e y for P e t i t i o n e r J O H N R. K R O G E R A t t o r n e y General K R I S T E N E. B O Y D A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y General D e p a r t m e n t o f Justice 1162 C o u r t S t r e e t N E Salem, O R 97301 A t t o r n e y s for R e s p o n d e n t 1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. F o r the reasons that follow, the Petition for W r i t o f Habeas Corpus s h o u l d b e DENIED.
BACKGROUND
O n March 4, 1998, a Lane County grand j u r y indicted Petitioner o n one charge o f Murder.
The case was tried to a j u r y , and Petitioner was convicted. On February 18, 1999, t h e trial j u d g e s e n t e n c e d P e t i t i o n e r t o a t e o n o f life i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h a m a n d a t o r y m i n i m u m o f 2 5 y e a r s . Petitioner filed a direct appeal. The Oregon Court o fAppeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. State v. Stokke, 175 Or. App. 5 5 5 , 2 9 P . 3 d 626, rev.
denied, 333 Or. 1 6 2 , 3 9 P.3d 192 (2001).
P e t i t i o n e r t h e n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n for s t a t e p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f ( " P C R " ) . F o l l o w i n g a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e P C R t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d relief. P e t i t i o n e r a p p e a l e d , b u t t h e O r e g o n C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d w i t h o u t o p i n i o n a n d the O r e g o n S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n i e d review.
Stokke v.
Czerniak, 210 Or. App. 756, 153 P.3d 178, rev. denied, 342 Or. 645, 158 P . 3 d 508 (2007).
O n August 8 , 2 0 0 7 , Petitioner filed h i s Petition for W r i t o f Habeas Corpus i n this court. T h e s o l e c l a i m f o r r e l i e f at i s s u e i s P e t i t i o n e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t h i s t r i a l a t t o r n e y p r o v i d e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l b y failing t o o b j e c t t o t h e s e n t e n c e o f l i f e imprisonment. I
I p e t i t i o n e r i n c l u d e d t w o a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s for r e l i e f i n h i s P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f H a b e a s Corpus, b u t a f f i n n a t i v e l y w a i v e d t h o s e c l a i m s i n h i s M e m o r a n d u m o f L a w i n S u p p o r t o f Petition for Writ o f Habeas corpus. 2 - FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION -
DISCUSSION I. Legal S t a n d a r d s
U n d e r 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( I ) , as a m e n d e d b y t h e A n t i t e r r o r i s m a n d E f I e c t i v e D e a t h P e n a l t y A c t o f 1996, h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f m a y n o t b e g r a n t e d o n a n y c l a i m t h a t w a s a d j u d i c a t e d o n t h e m e r i t s i n s t a t e court, u n l e s s t h e adjudication: (1) resulted i n a decision t h a t w a s c o n t r a r y t o , o r i n v o l v e d a n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f , c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l l a w , as d e t e n n i n e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d States; o r (2) resulted i n a decision that was based o n a n unreasonable d e t e n n i n a t i o n o f t h e facts i n l i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e S t a t e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g . A s t a t e c o u r t d e c i s i o n is n o t c o n s i d e r e d " c o n t r a r y t o " e s t a b l i s h e d S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t u n l e s s i t " a p p l i e s a r u l e t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s the g o v e r n i n g l a w s e t f o r t h i n [ S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e s ] " o r "confronts a s e t o f facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision o f [the Supreme] C o u r t and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [Supreme Court] precedent." L o c k y e r v.
Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73 (2003). A federal habeas court cannot overturn a state decision " s i m p l y
b e c a u s e t h a t c o u r t c o n c l u d e s i n its i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t t h a t t h e r e l e v a n t s t a t e - c o u r t d e c i s i o n applied clearly established federal law erroneously o r incorrectly." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 3 6 2 , 4 0 9 (2000). T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a t w o - p a r t t e s t to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t h a s r e c e i v e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f counsel. U n d e r t h i s t e s t , a p e t i t i o n e r m u s t p r o v e t h a t c o u n s e l ' s performance fell b e l o w a n objective standard o f reasonableness, a n d that there i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that, b u t for c o u n s e l ' s u n p r o f e s s i o n a l e r r o r s , t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 - 8 8 8 (1987).
3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
To prove a deficient performance o fcounsel~ a petitioner must demonstrate that trial counsel " m a d e e r r o r s t h a t a r e a s o n a b l y c o m p e t e n t a t t o r n e y as a d i l i g e n t a n d c o n s c i e n t i o u s a d v o c a t e w o u l d n o t have m a d e . " Butcher v. Marquez, 758 F.2d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1985). T h e test is whether t h e assistance w a s r e a s o n a b l y effective u n d e r t h e circumstances, a n d j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y m u s t b e h i g h l y
deferential~ w i t h t h e court indulging a presumption t h a t t h e attorney~s c o n d u c t falls w i t h i n t h e w i d e
r a n g e o f r e a s o n a b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e . Strickland, 4 6 6 U . S . a t 6 8 9 .
ll.
Analysis
P e t i t i o n e r a r g u e s h i s S i x t h A m e n d m e n t r i g h t to e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l w a s v i o l a t e d
b e c a u s e c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a l i f e s e n t e n c e , as t h a t s e n t e n c e w a s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e w h e n c o m p a r e d to t h e s e n t e n c e f o r a g g r a v a t e d m u r d e r . A t t h e t i m e o f P e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n for h i s c r i m e , O r e g o n ' s i n t e n t i o n a l m u r d e r s t a t u t e p r o v i d e d t h a t a p e r s o n convicted o f m u r d e r " s h a l l b e p u n i s h e d b y i m p r i s o n m e n t for l i f e " a n d t h a t " t h e defendant shall b e confined for a minimum o f 25 years without possibility o f p a r o l e. . . ." Or. Rev. Stat. § 163 .115(5)(1995). Because there were no statutory provisions for paroling a p e r s o n sentenced under this
McLain~ statute~ 419~
these sentences ended up constituting ' ' t r u e life" sentences. State v.
158 Or. App.
4 2 3 - 4 2 5 , 9 7 4 P . 2 d 727 (1995).
S i x d a y s a f t e r P e t i t i o n e r w a s sentenced, t h e O r e g o n C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o u n d t h e s e n t e n c i n g scheme provided b y Or. Rev. Stat. §163.115(5)(b) unconstitutionally disproportionate. McLain, 158 Or. App. at 427. T h e statute had the practical effect o f allowing certain prisoners convicted o f A g g r a v a t e d M u r d e r a n d s e n t e n c e d to " l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t " t o h a v e a p a r o l e h e a r i n g a f t e r s e r v i n g 25 y e a r s i n c u s t o d y ( w i t h n o p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e l e a s e u n t i l 3 0 y e a r s ) , w h e r e a s n o n - a g g r a v a t e d m u r d e r s
4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
with a life sentence h a d no opportunity for p a r o l e despite committing a lesser crime.
ld. The
O r e g o n C o u r t o f A p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d t h a t the p r o p e r s e n t e n c e i s t h e 2 5 - y e a r m a n d a t o r y m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e , f o l l o w e d b y p o s t - p r i s o n s u p e r v i s i o n f o r life. l d . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e i n m a t e w o u l d b e r e l e a s e d after 25 years and w o u l d n o t b e subject to parole a t the discretion o f the O r e g o n B o a r d o f P a r o l e and Post-Prison Supervision ("the Board''). T h e O r e g o n legislature, i n immediate reaction toMcLain, enacted legislation w h i c h granted t h e B o a r d a u t h o r i t y t o p a r o l e any p e r s o n w h o h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r a n d s e n t e n c e d t o " i m p r i s o n m e n t for life," regardless o f the date o f the underlying crime. Specifically, § 163 .115(5) w a s amended t o provide that a p r i s o n e r w h o served t h e 2 5 - y e a r m i n i m u m sentence c o u l d p e t i t i o n t h e B o a r d for a h e a r i n g to a l l o w t h e B o a r d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r h e w a s " l i k e l y to b e r e h a b i l i t a t e d w i t h i n a reasonable p e r i o d o f time." Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.115(5)(c) (1999). I f the B o a r d m a d e s u c h a finding, i t c o u l d c o n v e r t t h e s e n t e n c e t o " l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e , r e l e a s e t o post-prison supervision o r w o r k release a n d m a y s e t a release d a t e . " Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 163. 115(5)(d) (1999).
I n S t a t e v. Haynes, 168 Or. App. 565, 7 P . 3 d 623, rev. denied, 331 Or. 2 8 3 , 1 8 P . 3 d 1101
(2000), the Oregon C o u r t o f Appeals reviewed the legislative a m e n d m e n t t o Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.115 a n d f o u n d t h a t i t c u r e d t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y d e f i c i t t h a t w a s t h e b a s i s o f t h e d e c i s i o n i n
McLain. T h e amendment also cured the defect o f all previously i m p o s e d " i m p r i s o n m e n t for life"
sentences b y granting the B o a r d retroactive authority. ld. at 567-68. T h e Court o f A p p e a l s further addressed the issue o f an ex p o s t facto violation as a result o f the retroactive application, a n d determined t h e r e was n o violation since the amendment was ameliorative. ld.; see also Allen v.
5 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
Belleque, 2007 W L 2 1 5 5 8 0 3 (D. Or. 2007) (finding no e x p o s t f a c t o violation where Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 1 6 3 . 1 1 5 ( 5 ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) a p p l i e d retroactively). H e r e , P e t i t i o n e r argues c o u n s e l s h o u l d h a v e o b j e c t e d a t t h e t i m e o f s e n t e n c i n g o n t h e b a s i s that Petitioner's sentence was disproportionate to the sentence for aggravated murder, as s u b s e q u e n t l y d e c i d e d i n McLain. I n e s s e n c e , P e t i t i o n e r i s s a y i n g t r i a l c o u n s e l w a s i n e f f e c t i v e i n failing to anticipate a true change o f l a w as reflected b y McLain. T h e cases cited b y Petitioner i n support o f his argument are, however, distinguishable from t h e case at hand. T w o o f t h e c a s e s involved situations i n w h i c h courts found i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e w h e r e counsel failed t o object at sentencing based on law which existed p r i o r to the sentencing. See
United States v. Ford, 918 F .2d 1343, 1350 (8th Cir. 1 9 9 0 ) (counsel failed to o b j e c t t o b a s e offense
level w h e n a m o n t h prior to sentencing Congress h a d amended guideline to allow for two-point r e d u c t i o n i n c a r e e r o f f e n d e r ' s b a s e level w h e n o f f e n d e r a c c e p t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r crimes); United
Statesv. Kissick, 69 F.3d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 6 (1995) (counsel failed to o b j e c t t o p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n w h i c h d i d
not meet necessary elements required to support finding under "career offender" provision).
In the other case cited, Burdge v. Belleque, 290 Fed. Appx. 73 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth
Circuit found counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize multiple interpretations o f an Oregon s t a t u t e g o v e r n i n g s e n t e n c e s for p e r s o n s p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d . A t t h e t i m e o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g i n
Burdge, counsel was presented with an open question regarding w h o qualified as having
''previously b e e n convicted" under the statute. Moreover, statutes similar to O r e g o n ' s h a d b e e n s u c c e s s f u l l y c h a l l e n g e d for m a n y y e a r s i n o t h e r s t a t e s . T h e O r e g o n c o u r t s s u b s e q u e n t l y h e l d t h e
6 - FINDINGS AND RECOrvIMENDATION -
statute did not apply to defendants like Burdge, and the N i n t h Circuit h e l d counsel unreasonably f a i l e d to i d e n t i f y t h e a m b i g u i t y a n d a r g u e f o r t h e r e s u l t l a t e r v a l i d a t e d . H e r e , t h e s e n t e n c i n g i s s u e p r e s e n t e d to P e t i t i o n e r ' s c o u n s e l w a s n o t s u b j e c t to t h e s a m e ambiguity as identified i n Burdge. Instead, Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.115(5) w a s clear i n its application t o a n y m u r d e r c o n v i c t i o n a f t e r J u n e 3 0 , 1995, a n d t h e r e is n o d i s p u t e t h a t P e t i t i o n e r ' s s e n t e n c e w a s lawful at the time and correctly applied to Petitioner, as recognized b y t h e P C R trial j u d g e i n his F i n d i n g s o f F a c t a n d C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
***
9.
McLai~
. . . Petitioner's claim that trial counsel failed to object, pursuant trBtate v. 158 Or. App. 419 (1999), to the life sentence i m p o s e d b y t h e court i s b a r r e d p u r s u a n t to O R S 1 3 8 . 5 5 0 ( 2 ) ; a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l d i d a s s i g n a s e r r o r the imposition o f a life sentence relying upon State v. M c l a i n . I n any event, p e t i t i o n e r ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t t r i a l c o u n s e l and a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l r e g a r d i n g t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t d u e t o t h e h o l d i n g i n State v. Haynes, 168 Or. App. 565 (2000).
Resp. Exh. 121, p. 7.
"Strick/and does n o t m a n d a t e prescience, o n l y o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e a d v i c e u n d e r
prevailing professional norms." Sophanthavong v. Palmateer, 378 F . 3 d 859, 870 ( 9 t h Cir. 2004) (citing Strick/and, 466 U.S. at 690). Thus, a court reviewing a n ineffective assistance o f counsel claim cannot require that an attorney anticipate a decision i n a later case. Lowry v. Lewis, 21 F . 3 d 344, 346 (9th Cir. 1994). Because existing law did n o t support a n objection at t h e t i m e o f P e t i t i o n e r ' s sentencing, c o u n s e l ' s performance did not fall b e l o w a n objective standard o f reasonableness. Accordingly, t h e P C R trial c o u r t ' s decision d e n y i n g r e l i e f o n P e t i t i o n e r ' s
7 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
ineffective assistance o f counsel claim was not contrary to o r an unreasonable application o fclearly established federal law.
RECOMMENDATION
F o r these reasons, the Petition for Writ o f Habeas Corpus should b e DENIED and a judgment o f DISMISSAL should be entered.
SCHEDULING O R D E R
The above Findings and Recommendation are referred to a United States District Judge for review. Objections, i f any, are due November ~,2009. I f n o objections are filed, review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement that date. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after filing o f the objections. I f objections are filed, review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement upon receipt o f the response, or on the latest date for filing a response. DATED
thi~y o f October, 2009.
. Acosta d States M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e
8 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
