# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 37 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Max C. East in

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ray H ob bs , 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: Ju ne 12 , 20 12
Fil ed : Au gu st 21 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Max C. East in , an i nm at e in th e cu st od y of t he Arka ns as Depa rtment o f

Co rrec ti on , app eal s t he di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r 1

The Hon or ab le J. Leo n Ho lm es , Uni te d S ta te s Dist ric t Ju dg e fo r th e Eas te rn 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d re com m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Bet h

Deere , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.fed eral ha be as co rp us rel ie f fro m hi s s ta te co nv ic ti on s o n a nu m be r of dru g- rel at ed

ch arg es . W e aff

irm.

I. BACKGRO UND

East in was arre st ed aft er a se arch of hi s ho us eb o a t un co ve red ev id en ce of

m et ha m ph et am in e m an uf

act ur in g. In it ia ll y , hi s at to rn ey fil ed m ot io ns t o su pp res s

ev id en ce fro m th e s earc h of th e ho us eb oa t an d fo r di sc lo su re of th e id en ti ty of th e

in fo rm an t who se in fo rm at io n ha d pr ov id ed th e pr ob ab le cau se fo r th e se arch warra nt

. The tri al co ur t refu se d to or de r th e pr os ecu ti on to rev eal th e id en ti ty of th e in fo rm an t,

th ou gh

, an d East in ’s co un se l th en to ld th e co ur t th at he co ul d no t pr oc eed to arg ue hi s

m ot io n to su pp res s wit ho ut th e in fo rm an t’s id en ti ty be cau se th e m ot io n was ba se d

pr i mar i l y o n wha t he arg ue d was th e st at e’s fai lu re to es ta bl is h th e in fo rm an t’s

rel ia bi li ty. The c ou rt t he n d en ie d t he su pp res si on m ot io n.

Afte r a jury tri al

, East in was co nv ic te d of m an uf act ur in g m et ha m

ph et am in e,

us in g pa rap he rn al ia to m an uf act ur e m et ha m

ph et am in e, po ss es si ng a co nt ro l l ed

su bs ta nc e, an d si m

ul ta ne ou sl y po ss es si ng dr ug s an d a fir earm , an d he was se nt en ced

to 48 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. East in ap p e a l e d hi s co nv ic ti on on a nu m be r of

gr ou nd s, in cl ud in g th at hi s m ot io n to su pp res s sh ou ld ha ve be en gr an te d be cau se th e

se arch warra nt was ba se d on th e te st im on y of an in fo rm an t who se rel ia bi li ty ha d no t

be en es ta bl is he d. An Ark an sa s ap pe ll at e co ur t va cat ed th e co nv ic t i o n , f in di ng

East in ’s s up pr es si on arg um en t to be m eri to rio us

. Eas ti n v. St at e , 2 44 S

. W. 3 d 7 1 8,

72 3- 26 ( A rk

. Ct

. App

. 20 06 ). Howev er, th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t gr an te d th e

st at e’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w an d rev ers ed th e ap pe ll at e co ur t ’s d e c i si on , ho ld in g th at

Ea s t i n ha d no t pr op erl y pr es erv ed hi s su pp res si on arg um en t. Eas ti n v. St at e , 2 5 7

S.W .3d 58 , 63 -6 5 (Ar k. 2 00 7)

.

East in th en fil ed a pe ti ti on fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f pu rs ua nt to Ark an sa s Ru le

of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 37 .1, cl ai m in g th at hi s tri al co u n s e l h ad be en in effe ct iv e fo r

-2

-fai li ng to pr es erv e th e su pp res si on arg um en t. The tri al co ur t de ni ed hi s pe ti ti on , an d

East in ap pe al ed to th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t. The Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t he ld

th at East in co ul d no t sh ow pr ejud ic e f ro m hi s tri al co un se l’s fai lu re to pr es erv e th e

su pp res si on arg um en t an d affi rm ed th e tri al co ur t’s de ni al o f hi s pe ti ti on fo r po st

co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Eas ti n v. St at e , No. CR 08 -1 18 9, 20 10 W L 22 10 92 4, at *3 -4 (Ark

. Ju ne 3, 2 01 0)

.

East in th en fil ed th is fed eral ha be as co rp us act io n, rai si ng a nu m be r of cl ai m s

in cl u d i n g th at he was de ni ed effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l be cau se of hi s tri al

co un se l’s fai lu re to pr es erv e th e su pp res si on arg um en t. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d

East in ’s pe ti ti on wit h pr ejud ic e bu t gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al a b i l it y on th e

qu es ti on of whe th er East in ha d es ta bl is he d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l on th e

su pp res si on -p res erv at io n q ue st io n. 2

On ap pe al

, East in arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m

. He co nt en ds th at he i s e n t i t l e d to ha be as co rp us rel ie f

be cau se hi s t ria l co un se l was co ns ti tu ti on al ly in effe ct iv e in no t pro pe rly pr es erv in g

th e su pp res si on arg um en t an d th at he was p reju di ced as a res ul t b ecau se , if h is tri al

co un se l ha d pr op erl y m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce fro m th e ho us eb o a t : (1 ) th e

Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld no t ha ve di st ur be d th e ap pe ll at e co ur t jud gm en t

va cat in g Eas ti n’s con vi ct io n; (2 ) th e m ot io n wo ul d h av e b een gra nt ed as t he sea rch

warra nt was de fic ie nt un de r th e Ark an sa s Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e; an d (3 ) th e

m ot io n wou ld ha ve be en gr an te d be cau se th e se arch vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.

The di st ric t co ur t al so gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on an in de pe nd en t 2

Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m , bu t East in ha s a b a n do ne d th at cl ai m in hi s br ie fs an d at

or al arg um en t.

-3

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

Und er 28 U.S.C. § 22 54

, we gr an t ha be as co rp us r e l i e f t o a st at e pr is on er
who se cl ai m s were ad

jud ic at ed on th ei r m eri ts in st at e co ur t pr oc eed in gs on ly if th os e

pr oc eed in gs “ 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 bl is he d Fed eral la w, as de te rm in ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t”

or “ res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was ba se d on an un reas on ab le de te rm in a t io n of th e

fact s in li gh t of t h e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e St at e co ur t pr oc eed in g.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2 25 4( d) . “ A st at e co ur t d eci si on m ay be in co rrec t, y et st il l n ot un reas on ab le , and

w e w i l l gr an t rel ie f on ly if th e st at e co ur t de ci si on is bo th in co rrec t an d

un reas on ab le .” Co le v. Rop er , 62 3 F.3 d 11 83

, 11 87 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), cer t. de ni ed

, 56 5

U .S. ---, 13 2 S. Ct . 1 47 (2 01 1)

. In fed eral ha be as pr oc eed in gs , “ a de te rm in at io n of

a f a ct ua l is su e m ad e by a St at e co ur t sh al l be pr es um ed to be co rrec t.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2 25 4( e)(1 ).

In effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m s are go ve rn ed by th e two -p ro ng ed te st

in St ri ckl an d v. W

as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 66 8 (1 98 4 )

. F o r a c l ai m to be co gn iz ab le

,

co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce m us t ris e to a le ve l of co ns ti tu ti on a l d e fic ie nc y , an d th e
de fen da nt m

us t sh ow a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at

, “ bu t fo r co un se l’s un pr of es si on al

er ro rs , t he res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.” Id

. at 69 5. Fai lu re

to fil e a m eri to rio us m ot io n to s u p p r e ss can co ns ti tu te in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l if it res ul te d in pr ejud ic e. Ki mmelma n v. Mor ri so n , 47 7 U

. S

. 3 6 5

, 3 75
(1 98 6)

.

East in fir st co nt en ds th at he was pr ejud ic ed by hi s tri al co un se l’s fai lu re to

pr es erv e th e su pp res si on i s s u e be cau se ha d hi s tri al co un se l pr op erl y pr es erv ed th e

su pp res si on is su e th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld no t ha ve rev ers ed th e ap pe ll at e

co ur t’s jud gm en t su pp res si ng th e ev id en ce fo un d on th e ho us eb oa t. As a res ul t, th e

ap pe ll at e co ur t’s jud gm en t wou ld ha ve rem ai ne d in fo rce, an d hi s co nv ic ti on wou ld

ha ve be en va cat ed

.

-4

-Howev er, East in can no t rel y on th e ov ert ur ne d ap pe ll a t e c o u r t’s jud gm en t.

Und er Ark an sa s la w, whe n th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t gr an ts a pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w,
it tre at s th e a p pe al as if it were or ig in al ly fil ed in th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t,

rev ie win g th e tri al co ur t’s jud gm en t on ly an d no t th e ap pe ll at e co ur t’s jud gm en t.

Hamm v. St at e , 23 2 S.W .3d 46 3, 46 7 (Ark

. 20 06 ). As a res ul t, th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e

Co ur t’s d eci si on to rev ers e th e ap pe ll at e co ur t an d a ffi rm th e tr ia l co ur t’s jud gm en t

on th e ba si s of Easti n’s fail ur e to pr es erv e h is su pp res si on arg um en t cann ot be read

t o mea n n e ces sa ril y th at in th e ab se nc e of co un se l’s fai lu re to pr es erv e th e

su pp res si on is su e t h e A r k an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld ha ve al lo wed to st an d th e

ap pe ll at e co ur t’s reas on in g wit h res pe ct to th e m eri ts of th e su pp res si on is su e. As th e

Ark an sa s Su pr em e C o u r t it se lf sa id in it s de ni al of East in ’s pe ti ti on fo r po st

co nv ic ti on rel ie f, “ W e m ad e no de t e r mi n a t i on reg ard in g th e m eri ts of East in ’s

arg um en ts ” o n di rect ap pe al

. Eas ti n , 20 10 W L 22 10 92 4, at *4 . East in pro vi de s n o
ba si s fo r hi s as su m

pt io n th at a m ot io n to su pp res s wou ld ha ve be en m eri to rio us ba se d

on th e Ark an sa s Sup rem e Co ur t’s deci si on to rev ers e on a pr oc ed ur al gr ou nd rat he r

th an reac h th e m eri ts of th e le ga li ty of th e se arch

. East in ha s th eref or e no t carr ie d hi s
bu rd en of s ho win g p reju di ce fr om th e al le ge d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e.

East in ’s se co nd arg um en t is th at he was pr ejud ic ed by hi s tri al co un se l’s fai lu re

to pr es erv e th e su pp res si on is su e be cau se ha d hi s t r i a l co un se l pr op erl y m ov ed fo r

su pp res si on of th e e v i de nc e fro m th e ho us eb oa t su ch a m ot io n wou ld ha ve be en

m eri to rio us un de r th e Ark a n s a s Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e go ve rn in g se arch

warra nt s an d m ot io ns to su pp res s an d wou ld th eref or e ha ve ch an ge d th e ou tc om e of

th e pr oc eed in g. Ark an sa s Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 13 .1 pr ov id es t h a t

, i n

ap pl ic at io ns fo r se arch warra nt s rel y i n g on affi da vi ts ba se d “ in who le or in pa rt on
he ars ay , th e affi an t or wit ne ss sh al l se t fo rth pa rti cu l a r f a c t s be ari ng on th e

in fo rm an t’s rel ia bi li ty an d sh al l di sc lo se , as far as pr act ic ab le

, th e m ean s by whi ch th e

in fo rm at io n was ob ta in ed .” East in arg ue s th at th e affi da vi t pr es en te d in su pp or t of

th e ap pl ic at io n fo r th e se arch warra nt in hi s cas e, whi ch was ba se d la rg el y on he ars ay

-5

-fro m a si ng le co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t, di d no t ad eq ua te ly pr ov id e fact s su pp or ti ng th at

in fo rm an t’s re li ab il it y

.

The affi da vi t, th ou gh

, de sc rib ed in fo rm at io n th at th e in fo rm an t pr ov id ed to th e

affi an t po li ce of

fic er: s p e c i f

ic ch arac te ris ti cs of East in ’s ho us eb oa t, whi ch th e

in fo rm an t cl ai m ed was a lo cu s of m et ha m ph et am in e pr od uc ti on ; id en ti fic at io n of th e

in ha bi ta nt s of the ho us eb oa t, Easti n and hi s gi rlf rie nd ; th e sp eci fic do ck lo cat io n of

th e ho us eb oa t; an d th e fact th at th e ho us eb oa t was sa il in g at ni gh t on to Lak e DeGray,

al le ge dl y so th at m et ha m

ph et am in e co ul d be pro du ced in sec ret . The aff ia nt po li ce

of fic er co nf irmed wit h do ck of

fic ia ls an d a co un ty in ve st ig at or th e ch arac te ris ti cs of

th e h ou se bo at , it s i nh ab it an ts , it s l oc at io n, an d i ts no ct ur na l ex pe di ti on s.

Und er Ark an sa s la w, th ere are th ree fact or s fo r ev al ua ti ng th e rel ia bi li ty of an

in fo rm an t: “ 1) whe th er th e in fo rm an t was ex po se d to po ss ib le cri m in al or ci vi l

pr os ecu ti on if t h e r e po rt is fal se ; 2) whe th er th e rep or t is ba se d on th e pe rs on al

ob se rv at io ns of th e in fo rm an t; an d 3) whe th er th e of fic er’s pe rs on al o b s erv at io ns

co rro bo rat ed th e in fo rm an t’s ob se rv at io ns .” Fret te v. Ci ty of Sp ri ng da le

, 95 9 S.W .2d

73 4, 74 1 (Ark

. 19 98 ). “ The fir st fact or is sa ti sf ie d whe ne ve r a pe rs on gi ve s hi s or he r

na m e to au th or it ie s or if th e pe rs on gi ve s th e in fo rm at io n to th e au th or it ie s in pe rs on .”

Id

. The in fo rm an t in th is cas e m et wit h th e affi an t p o l i c e o f f i c e r in pe rs on

. “ W it h

reg ard to th e se co nd fact or , ‘an of fic er m ay in fer th at th e in fo rm at io n is ba se d on th e

in fo rm an t’s pe rs on al ob se rv at io n i f th e in fo rm at io n c on ta in s s uf fic ie nt de ta il th at it
[is ] ap pa r e n t t h a t th e in fo rm an t ha d no t be en fab ric at in g [th e] rep or t ou t of who le

c l o t h

. ” I d. (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng St at e v. Byb ee , 8 84 P.2 d 90 6, 90 8 ( O r

. Ct

. App

. 19 94 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. In ad di ti on to th e co rro bo rat ed de ta il s

m en ti on ed ab ov e, th e in fo rm an t pr ov id ed su ch de ta il s, ob se rv ed fi r st ha nd

, as th e

pr es en ce of a pi ll so ak on bo ard th e ho us eb oa t. “ The th ird an d fin al el em en t m ay be

sa ti sf ie d if t h e o f

f i cer

. . . fin ds th e pe rs on , th e ve hi cl e, an d th e lo cat io n as

su bs ta nt ia ll y de sc rib ed by th e in fo rm an t .” Id

. Thi s el em en t was sa ti sf ie d he re as
well

, in li gh t of th e affi an t of fic er’s co nf

i r mat i on of th e de ta il s pr ov id ed by th e

-6

-in fo rm an t. Ea s t i n ha s th eref or e fai le d to sh ow th at th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t’s

pr es um pt iv el y co rrec t fin di ng th at he “ ha s fai le d to pr ov id e a ba si s up on whi ch tri al

co un se l co ul d ha ve pr es en te d a m eri t o r i o us arg um en t reg ard in g th e in fo rm an t’s

rel ia bi li ty” was i n e rro r. Eas ti n , 20 10 W L 22 10 92 4, at *4

.

East in ’s fin al arg um en t is th at he was pr ejud ic ed by hi s tri al co un se l’s fai lu re

to pr es erv e th e su pp res si on is su e be cau s e h a d hi s tri al co un se l m ov ed pr op erl y fo r

s u p p res si on of th e ev id en ce fro m th e ho us eb oa t su ch a m ot io n wou ld ha ve be e n

m eri to rio us un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Eve n i f th e se arch warran t wer e to ha ve

la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se , th ou gh

, East in h a s ad va nc ed no arg um en t as to why th e

ex ecu ti on of th e se arch warra nt wou ld no t fal l un de r th e “ go od fai th ” ex cep ti on to th e

ex cl us io na ry ru le set ou t i n Uni te d S ta te s v. Le on , 46 8 U.S. 89 7 (1 98 4)

. East in ha s

ne ve r arg ue d th at th e “ m ag is tra te or jud g e i n is su in g [th e] warra nt was m is le d by

in fo rm at io n in an affi da vi t th at th e affi an t kn ew was fal se or wou ld ha ve kn own was

fal se ex cep t fo r hi s reck le ss di sr eg ard of th e tru th

. . . [o r th at ] th e is su in g m ag is tra te

who ll y ab an do ne d hi s jud ic ia l ro le .” Leo n , 46 8 U.S. at 92 3. East in ha s fai le d to sh ow

th at a m ot io n to su pp res s wou ld ha ve be en m eri to rio us un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.

East in ha s no t m et hi s bu rd en of sh owi ng th at

, bu t fo r th e cl ai m ed in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce, “ th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.” St ri ckl an d

, 46 6

U.S. at 69 4. The refo re, w e d o n ot fin d t he Arka ns as Su pr em e Co ur t’s deci si on th at

East in was no t pr ejud ic ed by an y de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce on th e pa rt of hi s co un se l to

be “ co nt r a r y to

, or in vo lv [in g] an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d

Fed eral la w” or to ha ve res te d on an un reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n of th e ev id en ce. 28
U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d)

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

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

-7

-