Opinion ID: 2830311
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Edwards Claim

Text: Blake also argues that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding his claim that the state introduced at trial custodial statements he made to officers in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because they denied him his request for counsel. Blake argues that these statements were inadmissible under Edwards, 451 U.S. at 477, and that—if his allegations are true—he would be entitled to habeas relief. Further, and perhaps most importantly, Blake argues that he need not meet the requirements of AEDPA in regard to this claim because the state courts did not address it on the merits. The state counters that we should apply the rebuttable presumption set forth in Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013), where the Supreme Court instructed that deferential review of state court proceedings under AEDPA is appropriate “when the state court addresses some of the claims raised by a defendant but not a claim that is later raised in a federal habeas proceeding.” Id. at 1091. Under this standard, the state suggests that the state trial court’s order dismissing Blake’s state habeas corpus petition—which expressly addressed only Blake’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel and excessive-sentencing claims—should constitute an adjudication of Blake’s Edwards claim on the merits. Resolving this threshold issue is key to our ability to grant Blake the relief he seeks. If the state court adjudicated Blake’s claim on the merits, then we can grant him relief only if he can demonstrate that the state court adjudication: 15 (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(d)(1)–(2). This is an intentionally difficult standard to meet. Johnson, 133 S. Ct. at 1091. Here, we believe that the state court did not adjudicate Blake’s Edwards claim on the merits. The state trial court’s order dismissing Blake’s habeas petition found that, other than Blake’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, all of Blake’s state habeas claims “were substantially the same claims presented to and reviewed by the Court of Appeals” in Blake’s initial appeal. But this is not so. Until his state habeas petition, Blake had never claimed that the custodial statements he made to police, later introduced at trial, followed a denial of his request for counsel.5 It appears that the state court thus dismissed Blake’s Edwards claim inadvertently, rather than giving it proper consideration. Such a dismissal cannot constitute an adjudication on the merits 5 Indeed, we note that Blake’s failure to raise this Edwards claim earlier than in his state habeas petition should have probably led to its being procedurally barred under New Mexico law. See, e.g., Duncan v. Kerby, 851 P.2d 466, 468 (N.M. 1993) (“We have held that New Mexico postconviction procedures are not a substitute for direct appeal and that our statutes do not require collateral review of issues when the facts submitted were known or available to the petitioner at the time of his trial. When a defendant should have raised an issue on direct appeal, but failed to do so, he or she may be precluded from raising the issue in habeas corpus proceedings.” (citation omitted)). But the state acknowledges in its brief that it never sought to enforce a procedural bar for failure to exhaust state remedies, waiving this argument. See Hale v. Gibson, 227 F.3d 1298, 1310–11 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Because the state does not raise procedural bar on appeal, we will consider the procedural due process claim on the merits.”). 16 of Blake’s Edwards claim. Id. at 1097 (“If a federal claim is rejected as a result of sheer inadvertence, it has not been evaluated based on the intrinsic right and wrong of the matter.”). But Blake has not fully escaped AEDPA just yet.6 In another section, the law provides that, if “the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,” we cannot grant an evidentiary hearing unless the claim relies on either: (1) “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable”; or (2) “a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(i)–(ii). In such a circumstance, an applicant also must demonstrate that “the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” Id. § 2254(e)(2)(B). “[A] failure to develop the factual basis of a claim is not established unless there is a lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or the prisoner’s counsel.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 432 (2000). Thus, a further threshold question weighing on our ability to grant Blake the relief he seeks is whether Blake was diligent in state court in developing a factual record 6 While the state never argued—and the district court never determined—that this portion of AEDPA may be relevant to Blake’s claim, we may affirm the district court “on any basis supported by the record, even if it requires ruling on arguments not reached by the district court or even presented to us on appeal.” Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Cir. 2011). 17 supporting his claim that officers refused his request for counsel. See Parker v. Scott, 394 F.3d 1302, 1324–25 (10th Cir. 2005). A habeas petitioner acts diligently where he seeks “to develop the factual basis underlying his habeas petition, but a state court prevent[s] him from doing so.” Smallwood v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 1257, 1266 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Miller v. Champion, 161 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir. 1998)). Here, our review of the record shows that—before filing his state habeas petition—Blake never suggested that he had asked for and had been denied counsel during questioning. Blake points us to four places in the record where he claims he “alleged in state and federal court that he requested counsel during his initial questioning, but the officers denied him that right.” These are the places, in chronological order: (1) Blake’s state habeas petition; (2) Blake’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court challenging the trial court’s denial of his state habeas petition; (3) Blake’s federal habeas petition; and (4) Blake’s objections at the federal district court to the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition. Importantly, none of Blake’s citations are to the state-court trial record, and a review of the trial transcripts explains why. There were numerous points during trial at which Blake could have developed the factual record underlying the alleged denial of his request for counsel but failed to do so. These include: (1) when both Sergeant Raines and Detective Moore testified at trial that Blake was advised of his rights and agreed to speak with them and Blake failed to object to this testimony; (2) when Blake cross-examined both Sergeant Raines and Detective Moore and failed to ask 18 them any questions regarding his alleged request for counsel and their alleged denial of counsel; (3) when, although he had asked during his questioning of Detective Moore whether the videotape of Moore’s initial questioning of him at the police station could be entered into evidence, Blake did not pursue this request when presented with the opportunity to do so after the completion of the state’s case;7 and (4) when Blake, acting as his own counsel as well as a witness, testified about the officers’ questioning him but never mentioned that he had requested and had been denied counsel. Given these circumstances, we have little difficulty finding that Blake did not exercise diligence in developing the factual record underlying his claim in state court. Further, given this failure, Blake is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim only if he can demonstrate that the claim either relies on (1) a new rule of constitutional law or (2) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(i)–(ii). Neither is the case here. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Blake’s request for an evidentiary hearing.