# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 25 53

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ro ge r Lem as te r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

W en dy Kelle y , Direc to r, Arka ns as Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - P in e Bl uf f

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 28 , 20 18 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 8, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Ro ge r Lem as te r cl ai m s in hi s fed era l h a b e a s pe ti ti on th at tri al co un se l was

in effe ct iv e fo r al le ge d l y di ss ua di ng hi m fro m te st ifyin g in hi s own de fen se

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t h e was no t en ti tl ed to an y rel ie f, an d we a ffi rm

. 1

I.

Th e s t at e of Ark an sa s ch arg ed Lem as te r wit h th e rap e of hi s mi n o r
st ep da ug ht er. Lem as te r’s de fen se at tri al was th at sh e ha d fab ric at ed th e al le ga ti on s, la rg el y du e to th e e nc ou rag em en t of he r m ot he r, wit h who m he ha d a frac tu red rel at io ns hi p. Lem as te r’s at to rn ey ag gr es si ve ly cro ss -ex am in ed th e vi ct im at tri al
, whi ch rev eal ed pr ob le m s wit h he r te st im on y an d in co ns is t e n c i e s in he r acco un t. Defen se co un se l fo cu se d o n t he vi ct im ’s cred ib il it y in clo si ng arg um en t.

Des pi te th is fo cu s, Lem as te r di d no t te st ify. He no w al le ge s th at he ex pr es se d

a de si re to do so , bu t co un se l ta lk ed hi m ou t of it by al le ge dl y te ll in g hi m th at “ th ere

was ‘no reas on ’” fo r it an d th at “ th e ‘case was won ’ wit ho ut hi s te st im on y .” Lem as te r di d no t pr ot es t whe n th e de f e n s e r e s t ed wit ho ut cal li ng hi m as a wit ne ss

. Des pi te

co un se l’s co nf

id en ce, t he jury fo un d Lem as te r gu il ty.

Afte r hi s co nv ic ti on beca

m e fi na l, L em as te r fi le d a sta te po st co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on in whi ch he al le ge d, am on g ot he r th in gs , th at co un se l h ad ren de red co ns ti tu ti on al ly in effe ct iv e as si st an ce by ad vi si ng hi m no t to te st ify. The st at e tri al co ur t de ni ed rel ie f wit ho ut gr an ti ng hi m an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , an d as rel ev an t he re, th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t affi rm ed

. Lema st er v. St at e , 20 13 Ark

. 44 9, at 3– 6 (p er cu ria m ). The bo tt om -li ne co nc lu si on of th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t was th at Lem as te r ha d fai le d

to es ta bl is h “ th at co un s e l ’s d e c i si on to ad vi se hi m no t to te st ify was ot he r th an a
ta ct ic al de ci si on wit hi n t he real m of c ou ns el ’s pro fes si on al jud gm en t.” Id

. at 6

.

The Hon or ab le Bi ll y Ro y W il so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Lem as te r th en pe ti ti on ed fo r fed eral ha be as rel ie f. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s

in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m , ag ai n wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Bu t it gr an te d h i m a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on th e cl ai m , whi ch we no w rev ie w de

no vo

. Se e O’Rou rk

e v. End el l , 15 3 F .3d 56 0, 5 78 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8)

.

II.

Lem as te r’s cl ai m fai ls fro m th e st art

. By st at ut e, a fed eral co ur t m ay no t gr an t ha be as rel ie f on “ an y cl ai m th at was ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri t s i n S t a t e co ur t
pr oc eed in gs un le ss th e ad

jud ic at ion,” as rel ev an t he re, “ res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was

co nt rary t o, or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , c le arl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral la w, as de te rm in ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d S t a t e s

. ” 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). W e m

us t, in ot he r wor ds
, de fer to “ [a] st at e co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at 2

a cl ai m la ck s m eri t

. . . so lo ng as fai rm in de d juri st s co ul d di sa gr ee on th e co rrec tn es s of th e st at e co ur t’s de ci si on .” Har ri ng to n v. Rich te r , 56 2 U.S. 86
, 1 0 1 (2 01 1) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Lem as te r is no t en ti tl ed to fed eral ha be as rel ie f be cau se th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on was ne it he r co nt rary t o no r an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y

es ta bl is he d fed eral la w

. To pr ev ai l on hi s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m , Lem as te r ha d to sh ow th at “ co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce w a s de fic ie nt ,” St ri ckl an d v. Wa s h i n g t on , 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 7 (1 98 4)
, whi ch th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t

co nc lu de d t ha t h e d id no t d o, Lema st er , 20 13 Ark. 4 49 , at 6

.

A fed eral co ur t m ay al so gr an t a pe ti ti on fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us if th e st at e 2

co ur t’s de ci si on was “ ba se d on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e St at e co ur t pr oc eed in g.” 18 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(2 ). The st at e co ur t’s de ci si on di d no t res t on a fa c t u a l de te rm in at io n, m uc h le ss an
un reas on ab le on e.

-3

-Pro vi ng de fic ie nc y is no eas y ta sk
, be cau se at to rn ey s who ha ve pr ep ared fo r

tri al are en ti tl ed to a “ st ro ng pr es um pt io n” th at th e ch al le ng ed act io n was “ so un d tri al

st rat eg y .” St ri ckl an d , 4 66 U.S. a t 6 8 9 ( c i t at io n om it te d) ; ac co rd Fra nc is v. Mil le r , 5 5 7 F

. 3 d 89 4, 90 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e “ ge ne ral pr es um pt io n” th a t
at t o r n e ys w ho ha ve pr ep ared fo r tri al ha ve “ en ga ge d in so un d tri al st rat eg y ”). Fo r

ex am pl e, p r o v i d e d th at co un se l ha s ad eq ua te ly in ve st ig at ed th e “ la w an d fact s rel ev an t to pl au si bl e op ti on s,” a de ci si on no t “ to cal l [a] wit ne ss []

. . . is pr es um ed to b e r e a s o na bl e tri al st rat eg y .” W hi te v. Rop er , 41 6 F.3 d 72 8, 73 2 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) (q uo ti ng St ri ckl an d , 46 6 U.S. at 69 0)

.

All th e Ark an sa s Su p rem e Co ur t di d whe n it de ni ed Lem as te r’s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m was ap pl y th e p res um

pt io n fro m St ri ckl an d

a nd co nc lu de th at Lem as te r ha d no t ov erco m e it

. It di d no t, as th e di st ric t co ur t th ou gh t , “an no un ce[] a pe r se ru le th at co un se l can no t be de fic ie nt fo r ad vi si ng a de fen da nt no t to te st ify as lo ng as co un se l in fo rm s th e de fen da nt of hi s rig ht to te st ify

on hi s own be ha lf.” Afte r al l, sa y in g th at Lem as te r “ fai l[e d] to m eet hi s bu rd en of

pr oo f” or “ sh ow” th at tri al c o u n se l’s de ci si on was an y th in g “ ot he r th an a ta ct ic al de ci si on ,” Lema st er , 20 13 Ark. 4 49 , at 5 –6 , is co nt ex t-s pe ci fic , no t ca te go ric al

.

The Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on al so reas on ab ly ap pl ie d th e
pr es um pt io n. Am on g ot he r th in gs , Lem as te r di d no t al le ge th at co un s el ha d

co nd uc te d a de fic ie nt in ve st igat io n, rel ie d on ba d in fo rm at io n, or in te nt io na ll y m is le d hi m or co erce d hi m in to gi vi ng up hi s rig ht to te st ify. In fact
, Lem as te r di d no t ev en

“ st at e wha t hi s te st im on y wou l d h a v e be en .” Id

. at 4. In st ead
, he si m pl y m ad e

co nc lu so ry as se rti on s th at tri al co un s e l
, in hi nd si gh t, sh ou ld ha ve m ad e a di ffer en t
st rat eg ic cal cu la ti on

. Giv en th es e th read ba re al le ga ti on s, th e A r k a n s a s Su pr em e Co ur t was en ti tl ed to co nc lu de th at Lem as te r ha d fai le d to ov erco m e th e pr es um pt io n of co m pe te nc e an d “ m eet hi s b ur de n o f pr oo f” t o s ho w def ic ie nc y

. Id

. at 5

.

-4

-Th at th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t reas on ab ly rejec te d Lem as te r’s cl ai m a l s o

es ta bl is he s th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n whe n it de cl in ed to ho ld

an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Se e W ri gh t v. Bo wer

so x , 72 0 F .3d 97 9, 9 87 (8t h C ir. 20 13 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e st an da rd of rev ie w). A d i st ric t co ur t is no t req ui red to ho ld an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng if th e reco rd “ pr ecl ud es ha be as rel ie f.” Sc hr ir o v. La nd ri ga n , 55 0 U.S. 46 5, 47 4 (2 00 7)

. Lem as te r’s cl ai m fai ls un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d) (1 ),

reg ard le ss of a ny facts th at m ig ht em erg e at an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

.

III.

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-