Opinion ID: 516469
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural Barriers

Text: 11 Once an initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been fully processed by a federal court, a state prisoner must comply with certain procedural prerequisites before obtaining subsequent federal review of any constitutional claims relating to his conviction or sentence. A fundamental requirement contained in these procedures is that a state prisoner must exhaust his state court remedies. Assuming a defendant has filed one state court post-conviction petition before filing a petition in federal court, the doctrine requiring exhaustion of an existing state court remedy becomes inapplicable in light of the fact that generally no state court remedy exists. 12 The next procedural barrier a prisoner must confront is the rule which precludes federal review of issues if there has been a procedural default by the prisoner on those issues in the state court. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 86-87, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2506-07, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Thus a petitioner cannot assert a claim of constitutional error at trial if he did not contemporaneously object at trial. Furthermore, the petitioner cannot assert claims of constitutional error on his appeal if the issue was omitted on the state court appeal. Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 2665, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986). See also Stokes v. Armontrout, 851 F.2d 1085, 1092 (8th Cir.1988) (application of cause and prejudice rules in federal habeas proceeding when petitioner's counsel failed to raise constitutional claims in state post-conviction proceeding). The procedural by-pass rule is said to promote finality and deference to the procedure of the state court. Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. at 533, 106 S.Ct. at 2665. 13 Two exceptions exist, however, to the procedural by-pass rule. First, the existence of both cause and prejudice may excuse the procedural default in state court. Cause is an ill-defined term over which federal judges have debated. Generally, cause can be established if some extrinsic circumstances prevented counsel from raising the issue. The usual example is the emergence of a new principle of constitutional law previously unrecognized at the time of the state court proceeding. Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 18, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2911, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984). Cause may also be established by a sixth amendment violation of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 380-82, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2586-87, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). Once cause is established, actual prejudice must be separately proven. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 168, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1594, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 129, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1572, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982). 14 The other exception to Sykes now appears in Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) and Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 106 S.Ct. 2661, 91 L.Ed.2d 434 (1986). The procedural default rule can be avoided if a fundamental miscarriage of justice has occurred where the alleged error undermined the accuracy of the guilt or sentencing determination. Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. at 539, 106 S.Ct. at 2669. See also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. at 496, 106 S.Ct. at 2650. 15 Before ineffective assistance of counsel may be used to obviate a state procedural by-pass rule, actual prejudice must be shown. This requires a demonstration of a reasonable probability that, absent the [attorney's] errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2068-69. In dealing with the prejudice portion of the cause and prejudice test under Sykes, the Supreme Court has clearly required a showing of actual prejudice as well as the demonstration of cause. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. at 495, 106 S.Ct. at 2649. See also Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. at 110, 102 S.Ct. at 1563. The terms in Sykes are therefore not dissimilar to Strickland' § prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Cf. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. at 167-68, 102 S.Ct. at 1594-95; Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 1736, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977). Similarly, in Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986), the court observed that the ends of justice standard involved in review of successive petitions for a writ requires a showing of a constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence. Id. at 444-45, 106 S.Ct. at 2622 (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. at 15, 16-17, 83 S.Ct. at 1077-78). Although each of the tests relating to actual prejudice are raised in a different context or stage in presenting habeas claims, it is readily apparent that the same core concern pervades the ultimate requirement for a habeas petitioner to succeed. 3 16 In a repetitive filing of a habeas petition of claims that have not been previously submitted, the petitioner faces the implicit barrier of a bevy of procedural by-pass rules. In the present case, for example, Mercer raises claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel which he has not raised before in either his state or federal post-conviction proceedings. Before we may review the merits of those claims, we must question whether there was cause and prejudice in his failure to raise these issues in his state post-conviction claims or his first federal habeas petition. Cf. Stokes v. Armontrout, 851 F.2d at 1092. This raises the question of whether his counsel for the post-conviction proceedings was ineffective and caused him prejudice in not raising these claims. See, e.g., Gilmore v. Armontrout, 861 F.2d 1061, 1063-64 (8th Cir.1988); Stokes v. Armontrout, 851 F.2d at 1092-96. Petitioner has made no showing that his first trial counsel in the state post-conviction proceeding or his trial counsel in the first habeas proceeding was ineffective under Strickland standards. Nor has petitioner demonstrated a fundamental miscarriage of justice to obviate the cause and prejudice standard. See Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. at 539, 106 S.Ct. at 2669.