NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0627n.06 No. 08-3683 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
JASON F LANNERY, P etitioner -Appellant,
v. STU AR T HU DSO N, Wa r de n, Respondent-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

BEF OR E: M ER RI TT, RO G ER S, a nd SU TTON , C ir c uit Judg e s. MERRITT, Circuit Judge . J ason F lanner y appea ls the di strict court’s de nial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We g rante d a certificate of appea lability as to two issues: (1) whe ther the trial cour

t violated the Six th Amendment by imposin g a s en t ence g reater than the maxi mum based on fac t f

indings not inhe rent in the verdic t or expressly found by the j u ry , an d (2 ) whether Flanne ry ’s appe llat e counse l was ineff ective f or fa iling to ra ise this arg ument. This circuit has
an s we re d t h es e questions in the neg ative in a r ece nt series of c ases with fa cts and proc edura l histories that are materia lly indisti ng uishable fr om the instant case. See Bake r v. Voorhies , No. 09 -3 48 4, 20 10 WL 32 78 22 8 (6 th Cir
. Au g . 20 , 2 01 0) ; Henley v. Brunsman , N o . 0 8

- 3 2 8 8 , 2 0 1 0 WL 21 81 80 4 (6 th C ir . Jun e 2, 20 10 ); Carter v. Timmerman-Cooper , No. 08-3535, 2010 WL 2089536 (6 th C ir . M a y

25 , 2 01 0) ; Thompson v. W arden , 598 F.3d 281 ( 6th Cir. 2010). Although one of usNo. 08-3683

Flannery v . Hudson

-2- has questioned the w isdom of this result, Henley , 2010 WL 2181804, at *4 (Mer ritt, J ., dissenting) , w e a r e n o w c o n s tr a in e d b y th e o v e r w h e lm in g w e ig h t o f p r e c e d e n t. We , there fore , AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ou rt
. I n J anuar y 2003, Flanne ry

was c onvicted of multiple felonies in a n Ohio state cour

t. That court sente nced him to twenty -eig ht y ear s of i mprisonment pursuant to an Ohio fe lony -sentenc ing statute that requir ed a shorter sentence unless the j udg e found certa in fac ts. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14(B )(2) . Flanne ry

filed a dire ct appe al to the Ohio Court of Appea ls in November 2004. Five
mon ths e a rl ie r, the U. S
. S up rem e Cou rt he ld t ha t a sim ila r s e nte nc ingstatut e vio la te d th e Sixth Amendment. Blakely

v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). B ut Flanne ry ’s appe llate counse l failed to raise a Blakely argument in the Ohio Court of Appea ls, which issued it s opinion in April 2005. F lann e ry did ra ise that argume nt in a pe tit ion fo r dis c re tio na ry re vie w to the Oh io S up re me Court , but it declined to hear

his case in August 2005. Several months later, aft er Fl an n ery ’s conviction beca me final, the O hio Supreme Court applied Blakely to inva lidate the statute under w hich Fla nnery was sente nced. State v. Foster , 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006) . Flanne ry then petitioned for habea s relief
. F lann e ry ’s a rgume nts a

re for ecl os e d b y

the pr e c e de nt o f t

his c ir c uit . H is Blak

e ly c la im i s proce durally defa

ulted beca

use he did not raise it at the O hio Court of Appea ls. See Thompson , 598 F .3 d a t 28 5 ( ho ldi ng pe tit ion e r’ s Blakely c la im w a s p ro c e dura lly de fa ult e d w he n he ra ise d it a t O hio Supre me Co u rt b u t n o t O h io Co u rt o f A p p e a ls )
. H is c la im th a t h is a p p e ll a te c o unsel was
c on sti tut ion a lly

ine ff e c tiv e , if su c c e ssf

ul, wo uld e sta

bli sh c a us e a nd pr e jud ic e to e xcu se thi s d e fa

ult
. B e u k e v . Houk , 53 7 F .3 d 6 18 , 6 31 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) . B ut F lann e ry c a nn ot s ho w tha t hi s a

pp e llate counsel’s pe rfor

manc e wa s d ef

i ci ent for f

ailing to r aise the Blakely claim. At the time his directNo. 08-3683

Flannery v . Hudson

-3- appea l was pending at the Ohio Court of Appeals, sever al di stricts of t hat court had rece ntly held that Blak e ly did not apply to Ohio’s s entenc ing sc heme. See Thompson , 537 F.3d at 286–87 (collec ting
case s). More importa

ntly , the Fif

th District — the very co u rt i n which F lanner y ’s appe al was pending — had just rejec ted the same Blak e ly argument. State v. Iddings , No. 2004CAA06043, 20 04 WL 35 63 92 1, a t *1 –4 (O hio Ct. Ap p. 5th Di st. No v. 8, 20 04 ). B e c a us e F lann e ry ’s a

pp e llate counsel c ould have rea sonably conclude d that the Blakely argument would be unsucc essful, he w as not constituti onally

ineffe ctive. See B aker , 201 0 WL 32 78 22 8, a t *3 –6 ; Henley , 2010 WL 2181804,
a t *2 –3 ; Carter , 2010 WL 2089536, at *3. Thompson , 5 98 F .3 d a t 28 4- 85 . F lann e ry c a nn ot u se ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ou ns e l a s c a

us e to e xcu se his pr oc e dura l def a ult , nor c a n he pr e va il o n it as a f ree standing claim for r elief. Th e pr e c e de nt o f t

his c ir c uit is c le a r. He de fa

ult e d h is Blak

e ly c la im b y

fa ili ng to r a ise it t o the Oh io C ou rt

of Ap pe a ls, a nd

he c a nn ot s ho w tha t hi s a pp e llate c ouns e l wa s ine ff e c tiv e be c a

us e the Ohio cour

ts in which his case w as pending clea rly reje cted the Blak

e ly argument at the time. As
a re su lt, we mus t a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt . We a lso de ny the pe nd ingmot ion to
a pp oin t c ou ns e l.