United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2161

___________

Timothy J. O'Meara, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Warden Robert Feneis, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2010

Filed: August 19, 2010 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Timothy J. O'Meara appeals the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. O'Meara was

convicted of two counts of second-degree criminal sexual assault in Minnesota state

court in April 2000. O'Meara failed to timely file a direct appeal. O'Meara did,

however, obtain postconviction relief from the Minnesota Supreme Court, which

remanded O'Meara's case for resentencing based upon Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000). Before O'Meara's resentencing, the Supreme Court of the United

States decided in Blakely v. Washington that an upward departure from the maximum

statutory sentence is unconstitutional under a guideline sentencing system unless a

jury finds the underlying facts or the defendant admits such facts. 542 U.S. 296

(2004). After O'Meara's resentencing, he appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals,
1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

2 Section 609.108, subdivision 2, permit[ted] a court to

impose a sentence of up to 40 years, "notwithstanding the

-2-

arguing that Blakely applied to his case. The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded

that Blakely did not apply retroactively and affirmed O'Meara's new sentence. The

Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently denied review. 

O'Meara filed the instant case for federal habeas relief contending that his new

sentence violates Blakely. The district court1

 denied O'Meara's petition after

concluding that the Minnesota Court of Appeals did not act contrary to, or

unreasonably apply, clearly established federal law when it concluded that O'Meara's

conviction became final in 2000 when his direct-appeal period expired and that, as a

result, Blakely did not apply retroactively to his case. We granted a certificate of

appealability to address whether the Minnesota Court of Appeals's decision that

Blakely did not apply to the determination of O'Meara's sentence was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. We now

affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. Background

In 1999, O'Meara was charged with two counts of second-degree criminal

sexual conduct, in violation of Minnesota Statute § 609.343, subdivision 1(a)(2). He

waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated that he used a video camera to record two

naked boys, ages 9 and 10, masturbating. The state trial court convicted O'Meara of

both counts. 

Prior to sentencing, the prosecution requested that the state trial court sentence

O'Meara as a patterned sex offender under Minnesota Statute § 609.108, subdivision

2.2

 At the sentencing hearing, a licensed psychologist testified that, in his opinion,
statutory maximum imprisonment penalty otherwise

provided for the offense." A defendant c[ould] be sentenced

to an increased penalty under subdivision 2 only if "the

factfinder determines, at the time of the trial or the guilty

plea, that a predatory offense was motivated by, committed

in the course of, or committed in furtherance of sexual

contact or penetration, as defined in section 609.341, and

the court is imposing a sentence under subdivision 1." 

State v. Grossman, 636 N.W.2d 545, 549 (Minn. 2001) (quoting Minn. Stat.

§ 609.108, subdiv. 2). In turn, § 609.108, subdivision 1(a), 

require[d] a court to impose a sentence of not less than double the

presumptive sentence and not more than the statutory maximum sentence

when each of the following three conditions [was] satisfied: First, the

court must be imposing a sentence for a conviction of any of four

enumerated offenses, including first-degree criminal sexual conduct, or

for a conviction of any other predatory crime "if it reasonably appears to

the court that the crime was motivated by the offender's sexual impulses

or was part of a predatory pattern of behavior that had criminal sexual

conduct as its goal." Minn. Stat. § 609.108, subd. 1(a)(1) (2000). Second,

the court must find "that the offender is a danger to public safety." Id.

subd. 1(a)(2). Third, the court must also find "that the offender needs

long-term treatment or supervision beyond the presumptive term of

imprisonment and supervised release." This finding "must be based on

a professional assessment by an examiner experienced in evaluating sex

offenders that concludes that the offender is a patterned sex offender."

Id. subd. 1(a)(3). 

Id. Section 609.108 was repealed effective August 1, 2006. 

-3-

O'Meara was a "patterned sex offender" within the meaning of § 609.108. The state

trial court concluded that O'Meara was a patterned sex offender and sentenced him to

two consecutive 40-year prison terms pursuant to § 609.108, subdivisions 1 and 2. If

the state trial court had sentenced O'Meara under § 609.343, subdivision 2—criminal
3

O'Meara filed his appeal three days after the August 6, 2000 due date. As a

result, his appeal was dismissed. 

4

The Supreme Court decided Apprendi on June 26, 2000. 

-4-

sexual misconduct—rather than the patterned sex offender statute, the maximum

sentence for each count would have been 25 years' imprisonment. 

O'Meara failed to timely appeal his judgment of conviction.3

 But before the

time period in which he could have directly appealed expired, the Supreme Court of

the United States decided Apprendi.

4

 In April 2002, O'Meara petitioned for state

postconviction relief, arguing, inter alia, that his sentence violated Apprendi. The state

trial court denied O'Meara's petition for postconviction relief, and the Minnesota Court

of Appeals affirmed. O'Meara v. State, No. C0-02-1982, 2003 WL 21743557 (Minn.

Ct. App. July 29, 2003) (unpublished) ("O'Meara I"). 

On May 13, 2004, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the

Minnesota Court of Appeals erred in concluding that O'Meara was not entitled to the

benefit of Apprendi. O'Meara v. State, 679 N.W.2d 334, 341 (Minn. 2004) ("O'Meara

II"). According to the court,

if a case is pending on direct review when a new rule of federal

constitutional criminal procedure is announced, the defendant is entitled

to benefit from that new rule. But if the defendant's conviction is already

final at the time the new rule is announced, then the criminal defendant

ordinarily may not avail himself of the new rule.

Id. at 339–40 (footnotes omitted) (citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987);

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)). The court then addressed when O'Meara's

conviction became "final," stating:
-5-

O'Meara's appeal period expired on August 6, 2000. Having failed to

perfect a direct appeal, his conviction became final on that date.

Apprendi was decided on June 26, 2000. Because the Apprendi decision

was handed down before O'Meara's conviction became final, O'Meara is

entitled to benefit from the Apprendi rule, as we applied it in Grossman.

The state has conceded that if O'Meara is entitled to benefit from the

Apprendi rule, his sentence was imposed in violation of Apprendi, and

must therefore be reduced.

Id. at 340 (emphasis added). In light of its holding, the court

[r]eversed and remanded for imposition of the statutory maximum

sentences of two consecutive 25-year terms under Minn. Stat.

§§ 609.108, subd. 1, and 609.343, subd. 2, plus the conditional release

term of 10 years mandated by Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7(a).

Id. at 341. 

While O'Meara awaited resentencing, on June 24, 2004, the Supreme Court

issued Blakely, holding that an upward departure from the maximum statutory

sentence is unconstitutional under a guideline system unless a jury finds the

underlying facts or the defendant admits such facts. 

On August 11, 2004, the state trial court resentenced O'Meara. At the

resentencing hearing, O'Meara argued that "under Blakely and Apprendi, the longest

sentences he could receive were the 'top of the box' presumptive guidelines." State v.

O'Meara, No. A-04-2140, 2005 WL 3527124, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2005)

(unpublished) ("O'Meara III"). The state trial court rejected O'Meara's argument,

concluding "that Blakely did not apply to [O'Meara's] case because [O'Meara's] case

had become final in August 2000, well before the decision in Blakely. Based on its

earlier findings under the patterned sex offender statute, the court sentenced [O'Meara]

to two consecutive 25-year prison terms." Id. 
5

As the magistrate judge pointed out in his report and recommendation to the

district court, O'Meara waived a jury trial and agreed to stipulated facts. The State

does not argue that O'Meara's waiver of a jury trial encompassed facts found at

sentencing, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals's decision under review did not

consider such argument. Therefore, we will not address it.

-6-

O'Meara appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, asserting that "his

sentence is unconstitutional because a judge, not a jury, decided the facts supporting

the upward durational departure based on the patterned sex offender statute. He

argue[d] that his case was still pending, not yet final, and therefore, the holding in

Blakely applies to his case." Id.

5

 The court rejected O'Meara's argument, reasoning that

O'Meara's "case became final on August 6, 2000, almost four years prior to Blakely."

Id. at *4. The court also rejected O'Meara's contention that "the holding in Blakely is

to be applied retroactively" based on a prior holding of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Id. (citing State v. Houston, 702 N.W.2d 268, 274 (Minn. 2005)). On March 14, 2006,

the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review of the Minnesota Court of Appeals's

decision.

On March 6, 2007, O'Meara petitioned for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that (1) his sentence was unconstitutional because it was

premised on facts found by a judge and not by a jury; (2) he is entitled to the benefit

of Blakely because his conviction was not final when Blakely was decided; and (3)

even if his sentence was final when Blakely was decided, Blakely announced a

watershed rule that should apply retroactively to his case.

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he

recommended that the district court deny O'Meara's petition and dismiss the action

with prejudice. The magistrate judge determined that the Minnesota Court of Appeals

committed no habeas error "in concluding that O'Meara's conviction was final in

August 2000." As a result, the magistrate judge found that the court's decision "cannot

be contrary to clearly established federal law" and that the court's "application of the
6

O'Meara acknowledges in his brief that he is not arguing that, even if his

sentence was final when Blakely was decided, Blakely announced a watershed rule

that should apply retroactively to his case.

-7-

Griffith line of cases, the closest relevant precedent, was not objectively

unreasonable." Furthermore, the magistrate judge concluded that the court reasonably

applied Teague in holding that Blakely did not retroactively apply to O'Meara's final

judgment of conviction. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation. 

Thereafter, we issued a certificate of appealability on the following question:

Whether the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals that the rule of

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), did not apply to the

determination of Mr. O'Meara's sentence was contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

II. Discussion

O'Meara argues that the Minnesota Court of Appeals's decision that Blakely did

not apply to his sentence was contrary to established precedent of the Supreme Court.

According to O'Meara, because he was awaiting resentencing in 2004 when the Court

decided Blakely, his conviction and sentence were not "final," meaning that Blakely

applies to him.6

 Additionally, O'Meara argues that his conviction was no longer "final"

after the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in May 2004 because his original

sentence was no longer in existence. 

In response, the State asserts that the Minnesota Court of Appeals correctly

applied Griffith—a decision of the Supreme Court—in determining that O'Meara's

conviction became final before Blakely was decided. According to the State, Griffith

stated that a judgment of conviction becomes final upon the conclusion of direct
-8-

review and held that new rules of federal criminal procedure apply retroactively to all

cases pending on direct review or are not yet final. As a result, the State concludes that

because Blakely was decided in 2004—long after O'Meara's direct-appeal period

expired in August 2000—Blakely does not apply retroactively to O'Meara. 

We must determine "whether the state supreme court acted contrary to or

unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it ruled against [O'Meara]."

Losh v. Fabian, 592 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). We may grant

O'Meara's habeas petition

on one of two grounds under the "contrary to" clause of § 2254(d)(1): "if

the state court arrive[d] at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the

Supreme] Court on a question of law" or if it "decide[d] a case

differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially

indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412–13, 120

S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000). [His] petition could be granted

under the "unreasonable application" clause only if the state court

applied the correct governing legal principle in an objectively

unreasonably manner. Id. at 409, 413, 120 S. Ct. 1495. Only rulings in

Supreme Court decisions issued before the state court acts are considered

clearly established federal law, id. at 412, 120 S. Ct. 1495, for a state

court does not act contrary to or unreasonably apply clearly established

federal law if there is no controlling Supreme Court holding on the point,

see Evenstad v. Carlson, 470 F.3d 777, 784 (8th Cir. 2006).

Id. 

In Blakely, the Supreme Court decided "that an upward departure from the

maximum statutory sentence is unconstitutional under a guideline system unless the

underlying facts have been found by a jury or admitted by the defendant." Id. at

821–22 (citing Blakely, 542 U.S. at 296). The Court in Blakely "clarified that 'the

[relevant] 'statutory maximum' . . . is the maximum sentence a judge may impose
-9-

solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the

defendant.'" Id. at 823 (quoting Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303). We have previously

recognized that "[t]he constitutional rule of criminal procedure established in Blakely

is only available to defendants whose criminal cases were not yet final at the time the

decision was issued." Id. (citing United States v. Stoltz, 149 F. App'x. 567, 569 (8th

Cir. 2005); United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 849 (10th Cir. 2005); Schardt v.

Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Phillips, 109 F. App'x

627, 628 (4th Cir. 2004); In re Dean, 375 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004)).

According to this court, "[w]hen a Supreme Court decision results in a 'new rule' of

criminal procedure, that rule applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct

review, but, as to convictions that are already final, the rule applies only in limited

circumstances." Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

In Losh, we determined that the Minnesota Supreme Court "correctly concluded

that the retroactivity issue is governed by the Supreme Court decisions in Schriro v.

Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 159 L. Ed. 2d 442 (2004), Teague v. Lane,

489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1989), and Griffith v. Kentucky,

479 U.S. 314, 107 S. Ct. 708, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649 (1987)." Id. In those precedents, the

Court "clearly established that '[a] state conviction and sentence become final for

purposes of retroactivity analysis when the availability of direct appeal to the state

courts has been exhausted and the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has

elapsed or a timely filed petition has been finally denied.'" Id. (quoting Caspari v.

Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 391 (1994)) (emphasis added); see also Griffith, 479 U.S. at

321 n.6 ("By 'final,' we mean a case in which a judgment of conviction has been

rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari

elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied.") (emphasis added).
-10-

Losh controls. Here, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, relying on the Minnesota

Supreme Court's decision in O'Meara II, concluded that 

[O'Meara's] case was final before Blakely was decided. In O'Meara [II],

the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that [O'Meara's] case became

final on August 6, 2000, almost four years prior to Blakely. [679 N.W.2d

at 340]. "[A] case is pending until such time as the availability of direct

appeal has been exhausted, the time for a petition for certiorari has

elapsed or a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court has been filed

and finally denied." Id. at 339. The court found that [O'Meara's] appeal

period expired on August 6, 2000 because he failed to perfect a direct

appeal. Id. at 340. 

O'Meara III, 2005 WL 3527124, at *4. In turn, just as in Losh, the Minnesota

Supreme Court in O'Meara II "reasonably applied" the precedent of Teague and

Griffith in determining that O'Meara's conviction became final on August 6,

2000—the date his period of direct appeal expired. 592 F.3d at 823–24 (stating that

"[t]he supreme court reasonably applied that precedent when it concluded that Losh's

conviction and sentence had 'become final the date her period of direct appeal expired'

because she had failed to seek direct review within the 90 day period prescribed by

Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subdiv. 4(3)").

As in Losh, the Minnesota Court of Appeals "concluded that [O'Meara] was not

entitled to appeal [his] sentence on the basis of Blakely because the date on which

[his] period of direct appeal expired and [his] conviction and sentence became final

([August 6, 2000]) preceded the date on which Blakely was decided (June 24, 2004)."

592 F.3d at 824. We explained in Losh that "[t]he Supreme Court has yet to consider

whether Blakely applies retroactively to cases that became final before it was decided"

and that, as a result, where "no clearly established federal law therefore exists,

§ 2254(d)(1) affords no grounds for disturbing the supreme court's conclusion." Id.
-11-

Additionally, we reject O'Meara's argument that his conviction was no longer

"final" after the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in May 2004 because his original

sentence was no longer in existence. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that

O'Meara's "case was final" on August 6, 2000, because O'Meara was not being

resentenced under a different statute in 2004, but rather was just "having the same

statutory sentence reduced." O'Meara III, 2005 WL 3527124, at *3. This was not an

unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because, as the district

court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, recognized, "no

Supreme Court case directly addresses whether resentencing after collateral review

renders a previously final conviction pending for the purpose of applying a new rule

of federal constitutional criminal procedure." See also Losh, 592 F.3d at 825 ("Neither

the Supreme Court nor any federal court of appeals has considered whether state law

governs the characterization of a type of state appellate review for purposes of

retroactivity analysis.").

Therefore, we hold that the Minnesota Court of Appeals's decision that

O'Meara's conviction became final before Blakely was decided is not contrary to, or

an unreasonable application of, federal law. 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________