NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0334n.06 No. 08-3288 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
BRIAN D. HENLEY, P etitioner -Appellant, v. TIM BRUNSMAN, War den Respondent-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE SOU THER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O

Be for e : M ER RI TT, G IBBO NS, and M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , Circuit Judge. Pe tit ion e r- a pp e lla nt B ri a n D . H e nle y

a pp e a ls pr o s e the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a wr it of h a b e a s c o rpus un de r 2 8 U .S. C. § 2 25 4. Of the mul tip le g ro un ds fo r r e lie f c la ime d in the pe tit ion , o nly

on e is a t is su e in t his a pp e a l: He nle y ’s c la im that his a

pp e llate c ouns e l wa s c on sti tut ion a lly ine ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto a rgue that hi s t ri al co u n s el erre d

i n n o to b j ec t i n g t o He n l ey ’s s en t en ce as v i o l at i n g Blakely v. W ashington , 5 42 U. S. 296 (2004). F or the following rea sons, we af firm the district cour

t’s decision. I. The unde rly ing f

acts, as rec ounted i n the M ag istrate J udg e’s Report and Rec ommendation,
are undisputed. He nle

yv . M oo re , No. 07-c v-031, 2007 WL 4884107 (S.D. Ohio J u n e 27, 2007). On S eptember 28, 2004, Henley was convicted by a jury in Montgomer

y County , Ohio of one c ount of kidnap p i n g, four c ounts of rape , two counts of fe lonious assault, and one c ount of attemptedNo. 08-3288

Henley v. Brunsman

-2- felonious assault. Id . at *2. On October 29, 2004, the state trial c ourt sentenc ed him to a total prison term of twe nty -two y ear s and found him to be a sexual predator. Id. At the sentenc ing he aring , the court made finding s on the rec ord supporting g reater than minimum sentence s, con s ec u tive sentenc es, and ma x imum sentences. Id
. On Novembe r 18, 2004, He nley timely soug ht reviewby

the Second District Court of Appea ls, Montgomer

y County , Ohio challe n g in g th e tria l court’s e videntiary ruling s, sexual predator de sig natio n, a nd the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su pp or tin g his c on vic tio ns . He a lso argue d th a t hi s sentenc e violated Blak

e ly
. On No vember

18, 2005, the state a

ppellate c ourt aff

irmed He nley ’s convictions. State v. He nley , No. 20789, 2005 Ohio App. L EXI S 5 531 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2005). That court re fused to conside r the Blak e ly c la im b e c a

us e He nle y

ha d n ot r a ise d it

a t hi s sentenc ing. Id
. at * * 2 2 (c i t i n g Sta te v . A us tin , N o. 20 44 5, 20 05 Oh io A pp . L EX I S 10 43 (O hio Ct. A p p . M ar . 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) )
. O n D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 5 , H e n l e y pr o s e appea led to the Ohio Supreme Court and on Marc h 8, 2006, that court declined to he ar the case . State v. He nley , 846 N. E. 2d 53 6 ( Oh io 2006). Henley unsucce ssfully soug ht a writ o f c e rti orar i fr om t he Un ite d St a te s Su

pr e me Court
. He nle yv . O hio , 549 U.S. 912 (2006). On J anuar y 31, 2006, he moved to reope n his appea l in the Ohio Court of Appe als based on the ineffe ctiveness of his appellate c ounsel in failing to raise tria l
c ouns e l’ s in e ff

e c tiv e ne ss at se nte nc ing
. On Ap ri l 10 , 2 00 6, that c ourt fo un d th a t H e nle y ’s a

pp e llate
co u n s el wa s n o t ineffe ctive and de nied his motion. On J uly 5, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court dismiss ed Henley ’s subsequent appea l f rom that decision. See State v. He nley , 850 N. E. 2d 73 (O hio 20 06). Hen le y

wa s a lso un su c c e ssf

ul i n p ur su ing

a n in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of tr ia l c ouns e l c la im thr ou g h a po st- c on vic tio n p e tit ion

in t he state tr ia l c ourt
.No. 08-3288

Henley v. Brunsman

-3- On J anuar

y 31, 2007, Henley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in fede ral district court, a sserting claims for ine ffe ctive assistanc e of a ppellate c ounsel (and tr ial counsel), tr ial court
err or, and insuff

icient evidenc e. Henley , 2007 WL 4884107, at *4. The district c ourt, adopting the Mag istrate Judge’ s Report and Rec ommendation in part, dismissed the petition on Fe bruar y 5, 2008. The district cour

t gr anted He nley

a C ertificate of Appea lability (“COA” ) wit h respe ct t o one issue: whether Henley ’s appe llate counse l was constitutionally ineffe ctive fo r failing to claim on dire ct appea l that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance by failing to obje ct to his sentence under Blak e ly when He nley

w a s sentence d sever al months after Blak e ly but before the Ohio Supreme Court applied that decision to the state’s sente ncing reg ime. He nle yv . M oo re , N o . 0 7
- c v - 0 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 WL 341362, at *2 (S.D. Ohio F eb. 5, 200 8 ). He n l ey timely appea led and we declined to e x pand the COA. II. I n a habeas c a se , we re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s le g al c on c lus ion s de novo and its fac tual finding s for c lear

err or. Dye r v. Bowlen , 465 F.3d 280, 28 3

– 8 4 (6 th Cir. 2006). Under T he An tit e rr or ism

a nd Ef fe c tiv e De a th P e na lty

Ac t of 19 96 (“ AE DPA ” ), the wr it ma y no t iss ue un le ss the state c ourt

pr oc e e din g s r e su lte d in

“ a de c isi on that wa s contr a ry to, or inv olv e d a

n unr e a so na

ble application of, c lear ly established Feder al l aw, as deter mined by the S upreme Court of the United States,” or “ a dec ision that was based upon a n unrea sonable de termination of the f acts in lig ht of

the evidenc e presented in the S tate court proce eding .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( 1)–(2)
. Under subsection (d )( 1) , “ a fe de ra l c ourt mus t fi nd a vio la tio n of law ‘c le a rl y e sta bli sh e d’ by

ho ldi ng s o f t

he Sup re me Court , a s o pp os e d to its dic ta , as of the time of the r eleva nt state court de cision.” Mi lle r v . F ra nc is ,No. 08-3288

Henley v. Brunsman

-4- 2 6 9 F. 3 d 6 0 9 , 6 1 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g W illiams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000)) . Also, a state cour t unrea sonably

applies fe d er al l aw if it “ide ntifies the cor rec t gove rning leg al principle . . . but unrea sonably

applies that principle to the f acts of the prisoner’ s case .” W illiams , 529 U.S. at 412. Henley

argues that on di rec t appea l, his appellate counsel should have contended that his trial counsel wa s constitutionally ineffe ctive by

failing to r ais e Blak

e ly at sentenc ing. H enley

was “entitled to ef

fec tive assistance of counse l in c onnection with [his] first appe al of rig ht.” Joshua v. De W itt , 341 F.3d 430, 441 (6th Cir. 2003)
. To succe ed on a claim of ineffe ctive assist an ce of counsel, H en l ey

must show: (1) counsel’s pe rfor mance was de ficient; and ( 2) this deficie nt perf ormanc e pre

judiced him. Nichols v. United States , 563 F.3d 240, 248–49 ( 6th Cir. 2009) ( en banc ) ( qu o t i n g Strickland v. W ashington , 46 6 U .S. 66 8, 68 7 ( 19 84 )) . A n atto rn e y ’s pe rf or manc e is defic ient if it falls “below an o b j ective standard of

rea sonablene ss.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 688. The Court must “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide ra ng e of
rea sonable prof

essional assistance .” Id . at 689. Def icient per formanc e is prejudicia l where “ther e is a rea sonable proba

bility that, but for c ounsel’s unprof essional er

rors, the r esult of the proc eeding would have be en diffe rent.” Id . at 69 4. “ A r e a so na ble pr ob a bil ity is a pr ob a bil ity su ff ic ie nt t o undermine c onfidenc e in the outcome.” Id
. Appellate counsel c annot be inef fec tive “for

a fa ilure to raise a n issue that lacks mer it.” Gr e e r v . M itc he ll , 264 F.3d 663, 676 ( 6th Cir. 2001). We rec entl y

decide d a ca se in a ne arly identical proc edura l posture in Benning v. W arden, Lebanon Correctional Institut ion , 345 F. App’ x 149 (6th Cir. 2009). In Benning , the petitioner wa s sentenc ed on September 22, 2004, three months a fter the Supreme Court decided Blak e ly
. Id. at 156.No. 08-3288

Henley v. Brunsman

-5- At that ti me , mo st O hio a

pp e llate c ourt s h a d c on c lud e d th a t Blak e ly did not affe ct the state’ s sentenc ing r eg ime. Id . at 157. The O hio Supreme Court ultimately applied Blak

e ly on Fe bruar

y 27, 200 6 , an d sever ed the unc onstitut ional portions of the state’ s felony sentenc ing statutes. State v. Foster , 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006) . The ke y question in Benning wa s “ wh e the r i t w a s r e a so na ble [for Be nning’ s attorney ] t o fail to make a Blak e ly objection on September

22, 2004.” 345 F . App’x at 157. We held that Be nning’ s trial counsel wa s not constituti onally ineffe ctive bec ause the “[t] he law wa s rapidly chang ing .
. . and the impac t of Blak e ly was fa r fr om cer tain” and, thus, “ resolution of the issue wa s ‘not clea

rly fore shadowe d’ at the time of trial.” Id
. (q u o t i n g Lucas v. O’D ea , 179 F.3d 412, 420 ( 6th Cir. 1999) ). “Althoug h prudent counsel would have pr eser ved a Blak

e ly c la im
un de r the se c ir c ums tanc e s, c ouns e l’ s fa ilure to an tic ipate that Foster wo uld ov e rr ule bin din g [state intermediate appellate court] prec edent wa s not constituti onally unrea sonable.” Id . T h

u s , Be nning’ s
case was not “one of t hose ‘rare case s’ for f inding inef

fec tive assistance beca

use [trial counsel] failed to anticipate a development in the l aw.” Id
. (a l t er at i o n i n o ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Lucas , 179 F.3d at 420). We concluded, “ Be cause trial counsel wa s not ineffe ctive, it follows that appellate counsel c annot be inef fec tive for f

ailing to r aise inef

fec tive assistance of trial counse l on direct a ppeal.” Id
. Ultimately , Be nning w as g rante d a conditional wr it of habeas corpus direc ting Ohio to resentenc e
or rele ase him bec ause his appe llate counse l failed to ra ise Blak e ly on direc t appea l. Id
. at 15 9. By t h a tt i m e , O h i o c o u r

t s h a d s t a rt e d t o a p p l y Blak e ly to i nv ali dat e sente nc e s a nd we no te d th a t “ if [appellate] counsel had brie fed the Blak e ly issue, Be nning w ould have been entitled to a rema nd for
rese ntencing under Foster .” Id . at 158.No. 08-3288

Henley v. Brunsman

This case is unlike Benning on ly in t hat H e nle y ’s a

pp e llate c ouns e l did

make a Blak

e ly c la im 1 o nd i r e c tr e v i e w , a l b e i tu n s u c c e s s f u l l y. Henley , 2005 Ohio App. L EXI S 5531, at **22. Howeve r, the conduc t of appe llate counse l on that issue is not before us now. -6- Th e pr oc e dura l po sture of thi s c a se , e sp e c ia lly

the tim ingof

He nle y ’s se nte nc ing , is ind ist inguis ha

ble fr om Benning

and the rea soning of that case justifies affirming the district court here . Henley

was sente nced on O ctober 29, 2004, a little m o re t h an a month afte r B enning was sentenc ed. As the Benning C o u rt em p h as i z ed , Oh i o co u rt s d i d n o tb egi n ap p l y i n g Blak e ly to invalidate sente nces until Marc h 2005. Id
. at 158. I ndeed, a s of Henle y ’s sentenc ing, Blak e ly had not been a

pplied by the S econd A

ppellate District. In State v. Sour , the def endant wa s convicted of multipl e counts of a g g ravated robbe ry and robbery and the trial judge sentenc ed him to consec utive
s e n t e n c e s t h a tr e s u l t e d

i n a n a g g r e g a t e e i g h t e e n - y e a r s e n t e n c e . N o . 1 9 9 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 O h i o A p p . LE X IS 3689, at **2 (Ohio C t. App. J uly 30, 2004). The court “conside red and reje cted the possibili ty that [ Blak e ly ] m ight impac t the propriety of Sour’s sente nce.” Id . at **3–4. I n Foster , the Oh io S up re me Court cited Sour

as one of the ca ses in which “[m]os t O h i o ap p el l ate c ourts have de termined that Blak e ly is inapplicable” to the state’s sente ncing reg ime. 845 N.E.2d at 488 and n.82. Thus, as of the date o f Henley ’s sentenc ing, O hio sentencinglaw wa s in a state of f lux and his trial counse l’s failure to anticipate the a

pplication of Blak

e ly in Foster did not c onstitut e inef fec tive assistance of counsel. Be cause his trial counsel wa s not ine ffe ctive, Henley ’s appellate counsel did not err by not 1

ra isi ngthe ine ff

e c tiv e ne ss o f t

ri a l c ouns e l on

dir e c t a pp e a l. III . For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the district court’s de cision.No. 08-3288

Henley v. Brunsman

-7- MERRI TT, Circuit J udg e, dissenting . We do not need to rely on the habe as statutory lang uag e to know that the f eder al law in habe as ca ses is “dete rmined by the Supreme Court of the United States” a

nd must be followed by

state cour ts as well as fede ral c ourts afte r the Supreme Court sp e a ks . 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 54 (b )( 1) . We lea rned th is s imp le pr inc ipl e the fi rs t y e a r i n la w s c ho ol. Unfortunately , the majority resists apply

ing it in this case. Thus, the ma

jo r it y h o ld s th a t i t w a s n o t i n e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e o f c o u n s e l w h e n H e n le y ’s lawy er f ail ed to raise a

nd rely on Blakely

v. W ashington , decide d four months befor e He nley was sentenc ed. The application of the Blak e ly case would have forbidden the Ohio courts fr om using the “sexual predator” desig nation to e nhance the sentenc e bec ause the jury in Henley ’s c a se ha d n ot s o fo un d. I ts Blak

e ly applicati o n wo u l d have sig nificantly reduc ed He nley ’s 22-y ear sentenc e. Henley ’s counse l was g uilty of i neff ective assistance of counsel for not raising it in order to protec t his client from an unne cessa rily long se ntence
. Idisag ree with the majority that the new r

ule of Blak

e ly runs in favor

of He nley

only afte r the date on which the Ohio courts recog nized and applied it in their sentencing scheme rathe r than afte r Blak e ly itself was de cided. He nley ’s counse l had a clea r duty to raise Blak

e ly at sentenc ing a

nd
wa s in e ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto d o s o. We s ho uld no t ne e d to be re min de d o f t he e le me nta

ry pr inc ipl e that g ener ally

we may not “re quire attorney s to forese e cha ng es in the law [but] once a chang e — particula rly an important and r eleva

nt chang e — does c ome about, we do expect counsel to be awar e of i t
. ” Ballard v. United States , 4 00 F .3 d 4 04 , 4 08 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) (h old ingthat Apprendi v. New Jerse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), must be immediately applied and the failure o f counsel to ra ise the i s s u e on appe al was ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel). Blak e ly w a s a n i mp o rt a n t c h a ng e fo r i tNo. 08-3288

Henley v. Brunsman

-8- ameliorates unnece ssarily long sentenc es based on an author itarian judg e’s se ntencing enhanc ement po lic ie s. I t g ive s th e de fe nd a nt t he ri g ht to a jur

y tr ia l on the e le me nts of

the c ri me that pr od

uc e his sentenc e. Our

court should not resist applying ve ry clea r law in a n unpublished opinion based on another unpublished opinion that was simply wrong ly decide d.