Opinion ID: 784606
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Habeas Petition Denied

Text: 20 On September 24, 2001, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation to deny Henderson's habeas petition. In this report, the magistrate judge determined that each of the claims that were raised in the Rule 32 petition that Henderson dismissed prior to an adjudication on the merits were procedurally defaulted because Henderson had failed to properly exhaust his state remedies as to these claims, and now, by virtue of an independent state procedural bar, the claims could no longer be brought in state court. 13 As to the issue of whether there was sufficient cause to overcome this procedural default, the magistrate judge reached the following conclusion: 21 [P]etitioner asserts that this waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made, even if voluntary. This argument is without merit. The record evidence is clear that petitioner knew he was giving up his right to a Rule 32 hearing. He may not have understood all of the issues that he was foregoing, but that is not necessary. What is important is that he understood that he was giving up whatever rights he had and that the result of that decision would hasten his execution. The purpose of the knowing and voluntary inquiry is to determine whether the defendant actually understands the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the decision is uncoerced. Clearly, petitioner understood the significance of what he was doing and the consequences thereof. 22 Furthermore, the undersigned magistrate judge concludes that petitioner's Rule 32 counsel, Mr. Steve Giddens, was unaware of his brother's prior involvement in the original prosecution of Henderson and ... there is no evidence that he exerted any undue influence on petitioner for that or any other reason. In short, Mr. Giddens' relationship to a prosecutor in this case was not a factor in petitioner's decision to waive his Rule 32 proceedings. 23 Consequently, the undersigned magistrate judge finds that petitioner has waived those issues raised in his Rule 32 petition because he dismissed that petition and cannot show cause and prejudice sufficient to overcome this procedural default. 24 Report and Recommendation at 50 (internal citations omitted). 25 On October 31, 2001, the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entered final judgment denying Henderson's federal habeas petition. In its final order, the district court indicated that it had carefully considered the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, as well as Henderson's objections, and found that only one claim carried any weight. That claim was whether Rule 32 counsel's relationship as the brother of the prosecutor who played a minor role 14 in the trial resulted in a conflict of interest which in turn resulted in petitioner waiving the Rule 32 proceeding in a manner that was not knowing or voluntary. The district court explained that it was unpersuaded that this argument is meritorious under the facts developed at the evidentiary hearing in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that this petition be denied. 26