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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 17 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Jo hn ny Lee Jo hn so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

W il li am Sp erfs la ge

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

15 , 20 19 Fi le d: Apri l 2 6, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, W OLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Jo hn ny Lee Jo hn so n a p p e a l s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s pe ti ti on fo r 1 ha be as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 5 4

. H e a r g u es th at he rece iv ed in effe ct iv e

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W

. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

.as si st an ce o f co un se l d ur in g t ria l an d o n d ire ct ap pe al fro m hi s Io wa co nv ic ti on for
two co un ts of f

irs t-d eg ree m

ur de r. W e affi rm

.

On Apr il 29 , 20 07 , Jo hn so n sh ot an d ki ll ed hi s es tra ng ed wife an d th e m an sh e

was da ti ng

. Jo hn so n’s te en ag e da ug ht er wit ne ss ed h i m i n th e act of m ur de rin g he r

m ot he r, aft er wh ic h J oh ns on de cl ared , “ It is ov er. Sh e was f’ing hi m . I’ m go in g t o jail , an d I do n’t care .” St at e v. Jo hn so n, 7 7 8 N

. W. 2 d 21 8, 20 09 W L 48 42 48 0, *1 (Io wa Ct

. App

. 20 09 ) (u np ub li sh ed ta bl e de ci si on ). Sh or tl y th erea fte r Jo hn so n cal le d hi s si st er-i n -la w an d sa id , “ I ha ve so m e sa d ne ws. I sh ot Kim .” Id

. at *1 n.1

. In a la te r ph on e cal l he to ld he r th at he ha d “ sh ot th em bo th .” Id

. W he n Jo hn so n la te r m et hi s br ot he r at th e sh eri ff’s of fic e to tu rn hi m se lf in , he to l d h i s b r o t h e r th at he ha d li ke ly sc rap ed hi s ha nd whi le “ be at in g th em

. . . to m ak e su re th ey were de ad .” Id

. at *1 (al te rat io n in o r i g i n al ). Jo hn so n ag ai n co nf es se d to th e ki ll in gs du rin g in te rro ga ti on by pol ic e.

Ph y si cal ev id en ce al so li nk ed Jo hn so n to th e cri m e sc en e. Law en fo rcem en t of fic ers reco ve red Jo hn so n’s Cze ch os lo va ki an pi st ol fro m whe re he ha d to ld th em he ha d t hr own it an d con fir m ed th at it m at ch ed th e sh el l ca si ng s fr om th e cri m e sc en e. Jo hn so n’s DNA was fo un d on a be er can ne ar hi s wife ’s ap a r t ment , as were hi s

m ud dy foo tp rin ts . Fin al ly, hi s wi fe’s b lo od was fo un d o n h is bl ue jeans

.

Befo re tri al be ga n , i t was de ci de d th at Jo hn so n wou ld wear sh ack le s on hi s le gs

. How th at de ci si on was m ad e is no t cl ear fro m th e reco rd , bu t Jo hn so n ev id en tl y di d no t ob

ject. Jo hn so n co nf

irmed du rin g a pr et ria l co nf eren ce th at he ha d s p o k en wit h h is co un se l re ga rd in g t he sh ack le s an d c on se nt ed to th e co ur t’s i ns tru ct in g t he jury that th ey

sh ou ld ass ig n no si gn ifi can ce to t he sh ack le s. Th e co ur t s ta te d t ha t i t

wou ld in fo rm th e jury th at Jo hn so n ha d ag reed to wear sh ack le s so th at th e sh eri ff’s de pu ti es co ul d pa tro l th e win try ro ad s in st ead of st an di ng in th e co ur tro om

. The re is

no reco rd , ho wev er, o f th e co ur t’s ac tu al st at em en t t o t he jury.

-2

-Jo hn so n di d no t ch al le ng e th e sh ack li ng on di rect ap pe al , bu t la te r so ug ht po st

co nv ic ti on rel ie f, cl ai m in g th at hi s t r i a l an d ap pe ll at e co un se l ha d be en in effe ct iv e fo r, in te r al i a , f

ai li ng to ob

ject to hi s sh ack li ng at tri al an d fai li ng to rai se th e is su e

on di rect ap pe al

. A st at e tri al co ur t in it ia ll y gr an te d Jo hn so n a ne w tri al , bu t th e Io wa Co ur t of App eal s rev ers ed , ho ld in g th at St ri c k la nd v. W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 66 8 (1 98 4) , go ve rn ed Jo hn so n’s cl ai m s fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l ari si ng fro m th e sh ack li ng

. Jo hn so n v. St at e, 86 0 N.W .2d 91 3, 91 9- 20 (Io wa Ct

. App

. 20 14 ). On

rem an d, th e tri al co ur t fo un d th at Jo hn so n co ul d no t sh ow a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e res ul t of hi s tri al wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t in th e ab se nc e of th e erro rs he al le ge d. See St ric kl an d, 46 6 U.S. at 69 4. The co ur t of ap pe al s affi rm ed

. Jo hn so n v. St at e, 88 6 N.W .2d 61 7, 20 16 W L 48 03 73 4, *6 (Io wa Ct

. App

. 20 16 ) (u np ub li sh ed
ta bl e de ci si on ). The fed eral di s t ric t co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly de ni ed Jo hn so n’s ha be as pe ti ti on , gra nt in g a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on ly as to th e sh ack li ng is su e.

“ In rev ie win g a fed eral di st r i c t c ou rt’s de ni al of ha be as rel ie f, we rev ie w fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d co nc lu si on s of la w de no vo .” Ervi n v. Bo wers ox , 89 2 F.3 d 97 9, 98 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). Rel ev an t here , Jo hn so n m us t sh ow th at th e st at e

co ur t ad jud ic at io n “ res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to , or in vo lv ed an

un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , cl earl y es ta b li sh ed 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 St at es .” 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). “ [T]he ap pl ic at io n of Su pr em e Co ur t ho ld in gs m us t be ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le , not m er el y w ro ng .” Ervi n, 89 2 F .3d at 9 83 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Jo hn so n do es no t arg ue on ap pe al th at he can de m on st rat e pr e jud ic e un de r St ric kl an d. He co nt en ds in st ead th at pre jud ic e sh ou ld be pre su m ed ba se d o n e it he r th e ho ld in g in Deck v. M i s s o u r i , 5 44 U.S. 62 2 (2 00 5) , or th e do ct rin e of st ru ct ur al

erro r. W e co nc lu de th at ne it he r ap pl ie s h ere.

In Deck , th e sh ack li ng is su e was rai se d on di rect ap pe al

. The Co ur t he ld th at

“ whe re a co ur t, wit ho ut ad eq ua te jus ti fic at io n, or de rs th e de fen da nt to wear sh ack le s

-3

-th at wil l be se en by th e jury, th e de fen da nt ne ed no t de m on st rat e act ua l pr ejud ic e to

make ou t a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n” ; in st ead , th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t th at th e erro r was ha rm le ss

. Id

. at 63 5. Bec au se Deck was de ci de d

on di rect ap pe al , ho wev er, it di d no t cl e a r l y e s ta bl is h a st an da rd fo r co ll at eral
pr oc eed in gs

.

Afte r an al y zi ng Deck an d ot he r cas es fro m fed eral an d st at e co ur ts , t he Io wa C o u r t of App eal s ag reed wit h th e m ajor it y of juri sd ic ti on s th at Jo hn so n sh ou l d b e req ui red to s h o w p r e

jud ic e to es ta bl is h in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. See, e.g ., Mar qu ard v. Sec. fo r Dep ’t of Co rr., 42 9 F.3 d 12 78 , 13 13 -1 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ); Peo pl e

v. Ro bi ns on , 87 2 N.E.2d 10 61 , 10 71 -7 2 (Il l. 20 07 ). Tha t co nc lu si on was no t “ an

erro r well un de rs to od an d com pr eh en de d in ex is ti ng la w be y on d any pos si bi li ty for fai rm in de d di sa gr eem en t.” Harri ng to n v. Ri ch te r, 56 2 U.S. 86 , 10 3 (2 01 1)

. In St een

v. Sch m al en be rg er, 68 7 F

. 3 d 1 06 0, 10 63 -6 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), we de ni ed a si m il ar ha be as pe ti ti on , ho ld in g th at th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t di d no t un reas on ab ly in te r p ret th e la w wh en it req ui red a pe ti ti on er to sh ow in a co ll at eral ch al le ng e th at he was pr ejud ic ed by weari ng an or an ge pr is on jum ps ui t du rin g hi s tri al

. The re ha s be en n o i n te rv en in g Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on cl earl y es ta bl is hi ng a di ffer en t ru le

. In de ed , th e st an da rd ad op te d by th e Io wa Co ur t of App eal s is co ns is t e n t wit h th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s su bs eq ue nt de ci si on in W eav er v. Mas sa ch us et ts , 13 7 S. Ct

. 18 99 , 19 11 (2 01 7) , whi ch he ld th at “ whe n a de fen da nt rai se s a pu bl ic -tr ia l vi ol at io n vi a an in effe ct iv e-as si s t a n c e-o f-co un se l cl ai m , St ric kl an d pr ejud ic e is no t sh own

au to m at ic al ly.”

Jo hn so n arg ue s al te rn at iv el y th at hi s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was so de fic ie nt th at it co ns tru ct iv el y de ni ed hi s rig ht to co un se l an d th us co ns ti tu te d st ru ct ur al erro r. The Io wa Co ur t of App eal s he ld th at Jo hn so n ha d fai le d to sh ow a de ni al of hi s rig ht
to co un se l. Bec au se Jo hn so n fai ls to su bm it an y le ga l au th or it y ren de rin g th at de ci si on un reas on ab le , we reject hi s ar g um en t th at st ru ct ur al erro r oc cu rred du rin g hi s t ria l. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ).

-4

-F i n a ll y , we de ny Jo hn so n’s req ue st to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

to em br ace t he ot he r is su es he rai se d i n t he di st ric t co ur t.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-5

-