Opinion ID: 178830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Claims 7 and 16: Visible Restraint

Text: Cole asserts that the leg brace restraint he was required to wear during his trial was visible to the jurors and that this violated his due process rights, as stated in Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 630-32, 125 S.Ct. 2007, 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005) (holding that visibly shackling a defendant during the penalty phase of a capital trial without a justifiable state interest violates due process). Claim 7 pertains to the effect of the restraint on the guilt phase of the trial and Claim 16 pertains to its effect on the sentencing phase. The state argues that Cole has defaulted these claims because they were not raised in either his direct appeal or his postconviction motion, but that even if not defaulted, Cole's claims would fail because the leg restraint was not visible and thereby did not violate Deck. Cole argues that these claims are not procedurally defaulted because he raised them in a motion to recall the mandate, shortly after Deck was decided, and that the claim was raised as soon as possible under Deck. The district court agreed that the Deck claim was not procedurally defaulted because it was raised in the motion to recall the mandate. Cole's 29.15 motion was denied in November 2004, and Deck was decided by the Supreme Court in May 2005. Cole filed his motion to recall the mandate based upon Deck in August 2005, and the Missouri Supreme Court summarily denied this motion later in August 2005. As noted, Claim 16 involves the restraint during penalty phase issue, and the basis for this claim would not have been available before Deck was decided. But Claim 7 is based upon unjustified restraint during the guilt phase, which has been unconstitutional since 1986 when the Supreme Court decided Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 567-68, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986). Cole failed to preserve this claim for review by the state courts, and advances no arguments with regard to cause for or prejudice from the procedural default of this claim. Accordingly, Claim 7 is defaulted. Claim 16 is not defaulted, however, because Cole raised the issue to the state courts as soon as the claim became legally viable (following Deck ) in a motion to recall the mandate. [4] The district court treated Claim 16 as though it had been adjudicated on the merits by the Missouri Supreme Court's summary denial of the motion to recall the mandate, accorded the decision AEDPA deference, and found that there was no unreasonable application of Deck because the restraint herea knee immobilizer worn under Cole's pantswas far less visible and obtrusive than those employed in Deck. Cole alleges that the restraint (even though worn under his pants) was visible from the bottom of his pants. He also submitted statements from a juror who remembered that Cole was shackled, and another from a juror who thought Cole was handcuffed during trial (which he clearly was not), as well as from family members who opined that the restraint was visible during trial. The district court refused to grant an evidentiary hearing on the issue, dismissed the credibility of the juror statements as the product of faulty memory, and denied the claim. Cole asserts that at the very least, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim. We review the district court's decision denying an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. Osborne v. Purkett, 411 F.3d 911, 915 (8th Cir.2005). The AEDPA dictates that an evidentiary hearing may only be held in extremely limited circumstances when the factual basis for a claim was not developed in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). However, an evidentiary hearing may also be held when the claim is based upon a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. Id. § 2254(e)(2)(A). While Cole arguably relies upon a new rule of constitutional law as set forth in Deck, the Supreme Court has not made Deck retroactive to cases on collateral review. Deck itself was a direct appeal from a Missouri conviction. We can find no Supreme Court case making Deck retrospective. Cf. In re Rutherford, 437 F.3d 1125, 1128 (11th Cir.2006) (holding that Deck is not retroactive for purposes of § 2244's general prohibition on successive habeas corpus petitions). Accordingly, because Cole's claim is not based upon a new retroactive constitutional rule, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on this claim. Nor did the district court err in refusing to grant relief on the merits of this claim. Deck cannot be the basis for a Missouri court violation of clearly established Supreme Court precedent because it was not decided until after Cole's conviction became final. See Williams v. Norris, 612 F.3d 941, 958 (8th Cir.2010) (Williams cannot claim any relief from Deck, because Deck post-dated his trial and the principles articulated therein were not clearly established at that time.). And even considering the merits, our review of the record indicates that Cole was not unconstitutionally shackled within the meaning of Deck. The record indicates that Cole's counsel was not even aware that Cole was restrained, as she thought he was wearing a knee brace because his knee was bothering him. In that regard, the following discussion took place on the record, out of the presence of the jury: [Cole's Counsel]: This morning, Your Honor, January 15th, I had asked the Court to consider having Mr. Cole's brace taken off of hiseither I think it's [sic] left leg. I'm not sure. He had it on last week. And I misunderstood what he was saying. I thought he was [sic] said he was wearing it because his knee was bothering him so I didn't bring this to the Court's attention before I asked the Court this morning and you asked the Department of Justice Services the reason for that. [Court]: They basically said it was their administrative policy on death penalty cases to implement the leg brace or install the leg brace on the Defendant in these kind of cases where he's in custody. So, if I believe that it may affect his ability in this case to effectively assist his attorney in this case, then I will reconsider that. [Counsel]: I don't think it will. I think it's uncomfortable. My thought was at first it was because he had to have it on. Tr. at 1188. Defense counsel and the trial judge spoke further about the fact that Cole was not too uncomfortable to assist in his own defense, and counsel also requested, and was promised, a recess before Cole testified so that the jury would not see him uncomfortably walking to the witness stand. The record reflects that when the jury was brought in for Cole's testimony, he was already seated at the witness stand. Considering that his own attorney was unaware that Cole was restrained, it is extremely unlikely that the jury was aware of it. Deck proscribes the routine use of visible shackles during the penalty phase of a capital trial. 544 U.S. at 632, 125 S.Ct. 2007. Because Cole was not subject to visible shackles, the district court properly denied relief on Claim 16.