Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01653/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01653-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

Although the Iowa courts referred to the petitioner as Hardin, this Court will

refer to the petitioner as Hardin El, the name he gave in this proceeding.

2

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 04-1653

________________

Romeo C. Hardin El,

Appellant,

v.

State of Iowa,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: December 13, 2004

 Filed: January 6, 2005

________________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Romeo C. Hardin El (“Hardin El”)1

 appeals the district court’s2 denial and

dismissal of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We

affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-1653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852112 
- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND

Hardin El is serving a life sentence and two concurrent ten-year terms pursuant

to state jury verdicts of first-degree murder, willful injury and terrorism with intent

to injure. Hardin El appealed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed his

convictions. 

Hardin El then applied for postconviction relief (PCR). In his pro se petition,

he brought claims based upon ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel,

prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of discretion and newly discovered evidence.

Appointed PCR counsel filed an amended petition raising two different claims. At

the PCR hearing, the court briefly discussed with Hardin El whether he was willing

to proceed only on the two grounds raised by his appointed counsel in the amended

petition. When asked whether he had a dispute with his counsel over which claims

to present, Hardin El replied, “I don’t have nothing to say. We basically went over

it and I’m comfortable with it.” Ruling only on the two issues presented by Hardin

El’s PCR counsel, the court denied Hardin El’s PCR application. The Iowa Court of

Appeals affirmed.

Hardin El filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. Hardin El claimed the following: “(1) he was denied effective assistance of

counsel when counsel (appellate and postconviction) refused to raise claims of

prosecutory misconduct, abuse of trial court’s discretion and newly discovered

evidence before the Iowa courts; (2) violation of federal law regarding his juvenile

court waiver; (3) actual innocence premised on newly discovered evidence; [and] (4)

denial of state court review of his pro se claims on direct appeal in postconviction

relief proceedings.” 

The district court held that Hardin El failed to exhaust claims (1), (2), and (4)

in state court and that claim (3) did not warrant an evidentiary hearing. Hardin El

Appellate Case: 04-1653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852112 
3

Even if we were to reach the merits of this claim, it would fail because a

petitioner cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of state postconviction

counsel. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Nolan v. Armontrout, 973

F.2d 615, 616-17 (8th Cir. 1992). In addition, Hardin El’s current claim for

ineffective assistance of direct appeal counsel was one of the pro se claims he waived

- 3 -

filed a timely notice of appeal, and the district court granted a certificate of

appealability on all four claims. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions

of law de novo. Thomas v. Bowersox, 208 F.3d 699, 701 (8th Cir. 2000). Whether

Hardin El failed to exhaust his claims in state court proceedings is a matter of law,

which we review de novo. See Randolf v. Kemna, 276 F.3d 401, 403 (8th Cir. 2002).

We agree with the district court’s holding that Hardin El failed to exhaust claims (1),

(2), and (4). 

Before obtaining federal habeas review, a state prisoner must exhaust his

federal claims by presenting them for review in the appropriate state forum. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b). The exhaustion doctrine requires state prisoners to “‘give the state

court one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one

complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.’” Dixon v.

Dormire, 263 F.3d 774, 777 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.

838, 845 (1999)). 

Hardin El’s first two claims for habeas relief were never raised in Iowa courts

and are not exhausted. Hardin El never brought a claim for ineffective assistance of

PCR counsel in state court,3

 and he never challenged his waiver of juvenile

Appellate Case: 04-1653 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852112 
during PCR proceedings. We dispose of that claim with his fourth claim below. 

4

Hardin El claims that he re-asserted these claims in a Motion Requesting

Order for Limited Remand that he filed with the Iowa Supreme Court while the PCR

court’s decision was pending. That document only requested a remand of those

issues to the Iowa district court. In denying this motion, the Iowa Supreme Court

neither addressed nor had opportunity to address the merits of those claims.

- 4 -

proceedings on federal constitutional grounds in state court. McCall v. Benson, 114

F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a petitioner must refer to a specific

constitutional right to fairly present a federal claim in state court). 

In his fourth claim for habeas relief, Hardin El attempts to resurrect the claims

he raised in his pro se PCR petition. The district court found that Hardin El waived

these claims when he agreed to pursue only the two claims brought by his appointed

counsel. We agree with the district court that Hardin El’s statement to the PCR court

that he was “comfortable” proceeding on the two claims brought by his counsel

constituted a waiver of his original pro se claims. Because Hardin El waived his pro

se claims, Iowa courts were never given an opportunity to address those claims, and

they were not exhausted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Iowa Code § 822.8; McCall,

114 F.3d at 756-57 (holding that a federal court may consider only those claims that

the petitioner presented to the state court in accordance with state procedural rules).4

For these reasons, we hold that Hardin El did not exhaust claims (1), (2), and

(4) of his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). Thus, the district court did

not err in dismissing these claims.

B. Actual Innocence

The district court held that Hardin El’s third claim, actual innocence, did not

warrant an evidentiary hearing. We agree.

Appellate Case: 04-1653 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852112 
- 5 -

Hardin El claims he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he possesses

newly discovered evidence of his actual innocence. Because Hardin El failed to

develop this claim in state court, he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless

there is either a new rule of constitutional law or “a factual predicate that could not

have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence,” and the facts

would establish “by clear and convincing evidence” his actual innocence. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(e)(2); Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 560 (8th Cir. 2000).

 

Hardin El’s petition provides only the following to support his claim of actual

innocence: “Since [the time of trial, the petitioner has received] evidence which

proves that petitioner did not commit the offense including but not limited to (A)

eyewitnesses identifying person other than petitioner and (B) new testimony in

petitioner’s defense.” He provides nothing further. Such bare allegations are

insufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional

error, no reasonable factfinder would have found Hardin El guilty. Thus, the district

court did not err in denying Hardin El’s request for an evidentiary hearing. 

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial and dismissal of Hardin

El’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

Appellate Case: 04-1653 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852112