Opinion ID: 2971748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the united states district court

Text: A. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus On November 4, 2002, Petitioner filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan a pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 1, 2003, Petitioner, now represented by another attorney, James S. Lawrence, filed an amended Petition listing the following grounds for relief: Issue 1. Petitioner’s statement to police was involuntary and inadmissible. Issue 2. Petitioner was denied a fair trial by testimony and argument that a prosecution witness had an agreement with the prosecutor to testify truthfully. Issue 3. Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel by failure to investigate, prepare and advance a diminished capacity/criminal responsibility defense, and by failure to request a cautionary instruction regarding testimony by an alleged accomplice. Issue 4. Petitioner was denied a fair trial where the trial judge reinstructed the jury with incomplete instructions that prejudiced the defense. Issue 5. Petitioner was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. JA at 20. The Petition noted that Issue 1 – the admissibility of Petitioner’s statement to the police – had been determined adversely to Petitioner on direct appeal, and that Issue 5 – the alleged ineffectiveness of appellate counsel – was based on a failure to raise Issues 2, 3, and 4, as well as two issues of state law, on direct appeal.4 Petitioner argued that the outcome of the appeal would have been different had appellate counsel raised these issues. The brief in support of the Petition contained extensive arguments and legal citations with respect to each of the five listed issues. Of particular significance in this appeal is Issue 5, the alleged ineffectiveness of appellate counsel. While Petitioner admits that “appellate counsel did raise good issues,” JA at 63, including the issue of the involuntary statement as set forth in Issue 1 in the habeas Petition, he argues that counsel’s failure to raise the other issues on direct appeal provides the basis for the claim of alleged ineffectiveness of appellate counsel. With respect to these other issues, Petitioner noted, “[b]ecause raised [for the first time] in the Motion for Relief from Judgment, they were doomed to failure under the ‘cause and prejudice’ rules of MCR 6.508(D), unless ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were to be found.” JA at 64. 4 The Petition states, “Counsel failed to raise on appeal Issues II-V here, and also 2 issues of state law.” JA at 16. Appellate counsel, however, obviously could not have raised Issue 5 on direct appeal. The two state law issues referred to were: (1) the failure of the trial court to give a cautionary instruction sua sponte on the accomplice testimony of a witness; and (2) the reference to Petitioner having been in jail. These alleged errors were the subjects of grounds I and III in Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment, but they were not included as issues in the habeas corpus Petition in federal court. No. 03-1894 Whiting v. Burt Page 7 Petitioner argued that the two-prong requirement of Strickland had been met, i.e., counsel’s failure to raise the other issues in the state court of appeals constituted deficient performance, and there was a reasonable probability that, if appellate counsel had raised these issues, the outcome of the appeal would have been different. Petitioner also pointed out that because the attorney who represented him on direct appeal, Lawrence E. Schultz, had also represented him at trial, Mr. Schultz would not be expected to raise claims based on his own ineffectiveness. Petitioner contended that when the same attorney represents a defendant at trial and on direct appeal, there is an inherent conflict of interest and, under the standard set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), prejudice is presumed. B. The Respondent’s Answer in Opposition to the Petition Respondent argued the merits of the first issue, the admissibility of Petitioner’s statement to the police, which had been decided adversely to Petitioner on direct appeal. Respondent claimed that Issues 2, 3, and 4 were procedurally defaulted because they were not raised on direct appeal, and the Michigan state courts had denied Petitioner relief under MCR 6.508(D). Recognizing that Petitioner was attempting to apply the cause and prejudice exception to the procedurally-defaulted claims on the basis of the alleged ineffectiveness of appellate counsel (Issue 5), Respondent argued that Petitioner had failed to satisfy the first prong of Strickland, i.e., that the attorney’s performance was deficient. Accordingly, Respondent contended, the procedurally-defaulted issues were not subject to review by the federal courts. Respondent, alternatively, argued that none of the allegedly defaulted claims was meritorious. C. The Standard of Review by the District Court A federal court’s review of a state court decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is governed by the Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), effective April 24, 1996.5 The provisions of that Act relevant to the issues in this case are as follows: (b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that-- (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant. (2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State. (3) A State shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement 5 Although Petitioner’s conviction predated the effective date of the AEDPA, his Petition was filed after that date and, therefore, the AEDPA applies. See Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 943 (6th Cir. 2004); Barker v. Yukins, 199 F.3d 867, 871 (6th Cir. 1999). No. 03-1894 Whiting v. Burt Page 8 unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives the requirement. (c) An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented. (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-- (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c),(d). D. The Opinion and Order of the District Court On June 10, 2003, the District Court rendered its Opinion and Order conditionally granting the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court, after recognizing the appropriate standard of review under the AEDPA, proceeded directly to Petitioner’s fifth claim, the alleged ineffectiveness of appellate counsel and the alleged conflict of interest arising from the fact that Petitioner was represented on direct appeal by the same attorney who represented him at trial. The court first, however, sua sponte questioned whether the claimed conflict of interest issue had been properly presented to the Michigan courts and, if not, whether Respondent had waived a possible procedural default, i.e., the failure to exhaust state remedies, by failing to assert the procedural default as an affirmative defense in Respondent’s Answer. The District Court’s reasoning on these important preliminary questions was as follows: Although not specifically addressed by respondent in her answer, the Court briefly discusses whether petitioner’s conflict of interest was properly exhausted with the Michigan courts. Although respondent failed to raise the exhaustion issue in her answer, this defense is not waived unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives the exhaustion requirement. Benoit v. Bock, 237 F. Supp. 2d 804, 806 (E.D. Mich. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). Moreover, “considerations of comity and federalism” require this Court to raise the exhaustion issue sua sponte. Id. In the present case, petitioner’s post-conviction counsel did not raise a separate ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim in his motion for relief from judgment. However, post-conviction counsel argued ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to establish “cause”, as required by M.C.R. 6.508(D)(3), to excuse petitioner’s failure to raise his post-conviction claims in his appeal of right. As part of this argument, post-conviction counsel made one reference to the conflict of interest issue: No. 03-1894 Whiting v. Burt Page 9 “Since the same attorney represented Defendant at the appellate levels, it is not surprising that the issues concerning ineffective assistance of counsel were not raised at that time.” This reference is sufficient to fairly present this claim to the Michigan courts. As to any possible procedural default for failure to raise this issue in the first appeal;6 this Court will not enforce any possible procedural default of the conflict of interest claim, because respondent failed to raise the defense of procedural default in her answer with respect to this specific claim. Benoit v. Bock, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 807. As the judge in Benoit indicated, with the exception of the exhaustion issue, “the Sixth Circuit strongly discourages the sua sponte invocation of procedural affirmative defenses that were not raised by the respondent.” Id. (Citing to Scott v. Collins, 286 F.3d 923, 928-29 (6th Cir. 2002)). Thus, although the issue of exhaustion must be expressly waived by respondent, “the same is not true for the affirmative defense of procedural default.” Id. Therefore, respondent’s failure to raise the procedural default defense in this case can be considered an implicit waiver of that issue. Benoit, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 807. JA at 233-34. The District Court, having concluded that Petitioner’s fifth claim, with its conflict of interest component, was properly before it, proceeded to address the merits of that claim. The court’s discussion focused basically on Attorney Schultz’s alleged conflict of interest. The District Court held: Defense attorneys owe their clients a duty of loyalty, including the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)(citing to Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 346 (1980)). However, a claim of a conflict of interest, by itself, is insufficient to justify reversal of a conviction. Reedus v. Stegall, 197 F. Supp. 2d 767, 782 (E.D. Mich. 2001)(citing to United States v. Hall, 200 F.3d 962, 966 (6th Cir. 2000); additional citations omitted). Instead, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate “that counsel ‘actively represented conflicting interests’ and that ‘an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.’” Reedus, 197 F. Supp. 2d at 782 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692); See also Mickens v. Taylor, 122 S. Ct. 1237, 1244, n.5 (2002)(actual conflict of interest, for Sixth Amendment purposes, is a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel’s performance). However, a petitioner who can show that his counsel operated under a conflict of interest which affected his representation need not establish prejudice. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 466 U.S. at 349-50; Tyler v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 2d 626, 631-32 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Instead, prejudice is presumed, in connection with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where a defendant demonstrates actual conflicts of interest that compromise his or her attorney’s ability to advocate his or her client’s interests. Olden v. United States, 224 F.3d 561, 565 (6th Cir. 2000)(citing to Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692). The right to conflict-free counsel extends to defendants who seek appellate review of their convictions. See e.g. Pisa v. Streeter, 491 F. Supp. 530, 532-533 (D. Mass. 1980). JA at 235-36. 6 We believe the District Court’s reference to the “first appeal” was to Defendant’s motion for relief from judgment, because Defendant’s first opportunity to claim ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was in that proceeding. No. 03-1894 Whiting v. Burt Page 10 The District Court believed that appellate counsel’s conflict of interest “prevented him from raising the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims that are raised in petitioner’s third claim,” JA 236, and that “[i]n addition, petitioner has shown that this conflict of interest adversely affected appellate counsel’s performance in that appellate counsel failed to raise several colorable ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims.” JA 238. It is clear that the District Court based the finding of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on a finding of a conflict of interest, and the application of the standard established in Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, in which prejudice need not be established when petitioner can show that his counsel operated under a conflict of interest which adversely affected his representation. Having found that Petitioner was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel as alleged in the fifth claim, the District Court did not consider the merits of any of the other claims, including Petitioner’s first claim concerning the admissibility of the allegedly involuntary statement to police, a claim which Attorney Schultz raised on direct appeal. Instead, the court ordered that a writ would be granted “if petitioner is not permitted to reinstate his appeal of right with the assistance of counsel in the Michigan Court of Appeals within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this Opinion and Order.” JA at 240.