Campbell v. Belleque

Filing 79

Opinion and Order. The Court Denies the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and DISMISSES this action. Signed on 9/28/09 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (cib)

FIl£D~09 SEP 2812:35USOC{W

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON DARREN W. CAMPBELL, Civi1 No. OS-832-BR Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v.
B R I A N BELLEQUE,

Respondent.
MICHELLE A . RYAN

8 2 8 SW T h i r d A v e n u e Suite 168 P o r t l a n d , OR 9 7 2 0 4 Attorney for Petitioner
JOHN R . KROGER Attorney General SUMMER R . GLEASON Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice 1 1 6 2 C o u r t S t r e e t NE S a l e m , OR 9 7 3 0 1

1 - OPINION AND ORDER -

BROWN, J u d g e .

P e t i t i o n e r b r i n g s t h i s habeas corpus a c t i o n pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 2254. F o r t h e r e a s o n s t h a t f o l l o w , t h e C o u r t DENIES t h e

Amended P e t i t i o n for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
BACKGROUND

On

June

15,

2001,

a

Coos

County

grand

jury

indicted On

Petitioner on charges of Murder and Hindering Prosecution. July 26, 2001, the grand jury entered an Amended

Indictment

charging Petitioner with Murder and Aggravated Murder. On May 3 , 2 0 0 2 , P e t i t i o n e r e n t e r e d a g u i l t y p l e a t o o n e c o u n t of Murder in return for dismissal of the Aggravated Murder charge. The t r i a l judge sentenced Petitioner to a mandatory sentence of l i f e i n prison with a 25-year minimum sentence. Petitioner sentence. ("PCR"). did not directly appeal his conviction or

He d i d ,

however,

seek state post-conviction relief

In an Amended P e t i t i o n for Post-Conviction r e l i e f he

alleged several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and one claim of t r i a l court error (for failure to allow a motion to substitute counsel prior to the plea agreement). Following an The

e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e s t a t e PCR t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d r e l i e f .

j u d g e f o u n d t h e t r i a l e r r o r w a s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e PCR c o u r t pursuant to Oregon procedural law, and that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of constitutional rights on the ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER -

Petitioner

appealed,

asserting

as

error

only

the

trial The

court's failure to allow the motion to substitute counsel.

Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Court of Appeals denied review. App. 685, 108
P~3d

Campbell v. Belleque, 197 Or.
338 Or. 4 8 8 , 1 1 3 P.3d 434

689,

rev. denied,

(2005) . On J u n e 7 , 2005, Petitioner filed his pro se Petition for This Court for Writ of

Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 2254. appointed counsel, who filed an Amended P e t i t i o n

Habeas Corpus on July 30, 2007. grounds for relief:

The Amended P e t i t i o n a l l e g e s two

Ground One: By f o r c i n g P e t i t i o n e r t o p r o c e e d w i t h a n a t t o r n e y who h a d a n i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t , the state effectively denied petitioner his .Sixth Amendment r i g h t t o counsel. G r o u n d Two: P e t i t i o n e r was denied h i s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel with regard to his guilty plea based on his t r i a l attorney's actual conflict of i n t e r e s t and numerous prejudicial acts and omissions. In particular, these acts and omissions center on t r i a l counsel's f a i l u r e to conduct reasonably adequate investigation before advising Petitioner to plead guilty, and include:

a.

Failure to consult with a toxicologist regarding the cumulative e f f e c t of marijuana and alcohol on Peti tioner' s s t a t e of mind a t the time of the alleged crime, including the possibility of an alcoholic blackout; Failure to investigate the background of the state's sole witness to the aggravatlngfactors, D e b r a Kay S c o t t , P e t i t i o n e r ' s t h e n g i r l f r i e n d ;

b.

3 - OPINION AND ORDER -

c.

Failure to properly advise Petitioner concerning the consequences of his guilty plea, in particular, advising him t h a t there was a p o s s i b i l i t y of an actual sentence of l e s s than 25 years and f a i l i n g to advise him of the maximum post-prison supervision term.

Respondent argues Petitioner procedurally defaulted a l l of the claims alleged i n h i s Amended P e t i t i o n . the claims are procedurally defaulted, but Petitioner concedes argues this Court

should find cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default.
DISCUSSION

Generally, a state prisoner must exhaust a l l available state court remedies either on direct appeal or through collateral

proceedings before a f e d e r a l court may consider g r a n t i n g habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (1); Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d

1000, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129

s.

Ct. 1033

(2009). as a

The exhaustion requirement insures t h a t the s t a t e courts,

matter of federal-state comity, will have the f i r s t opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of federal constitutional guarantees.

Coleman v. Thompson, 501

u.s.

722, 731 (1991).

When a s t a t e p r i s o n e r f a i l s t o e x h a u s t h i s f e d e r a l c l a i m s i n s t a t e c o u r t a n d t h e s t a t e c o u r t w o u l d now f i n d t h e c l a i m s b a r r e d under the applicable state procedural rules, the federal claims are procedurally defaulted.

Coleman,

501

u.s.

at

735

n.1.

Similarly, i f a federal constitutional claim is expressly rejected by a s t a t e court on the basis of a s t a t e procedural rule that i s

4 - OPINION AND ORDER -

independent o f t h e f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n a n d a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment, the claim is procedurally defaulted. F. 3d rule at to 1025. deny a A state claim court's is not

Id. at 729-30;
application of as a an

Cook,

538

procedural

undermined

independent and adequate ground i f the s t a t e court, a t the same time, rejects the claim on the merits. F.3d 573, 580 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioners are barred from raising procedurally defaulted claims in federal court unless they demonstrate: failing to properly present "actual prejudice" resulting the claim to the from such (1) "cause" for state court and or (2) "a

B e n n e t t v . M u e l l e r , 322

failure;

fundamental miscarriage of justice."

Edwards v. Carpenter, 529
In order to

u . s . 446, 451 (2000); Coleman, 501 U.s. a t 732.
establish cause demonstrate that factor that for a procedural is default, due to

"a petitioner must

the default fairly be

an external objective to him."

cannot

attributed

Smi th

v.

Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)
o m i t t e d ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 1 2 9 S . C t . 37 ( 2 0 0 8 ) .

(internal citations

There i s no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to an attorney in s t a t e post-conviction proceedings.

Coleman, 501 u. S. a t . 752.

As s u c h ,

"attorney ineffectiveness 'in the post-conviction process is not considered cause for the purposes of excusing the procedural (quoting

d e f a u l t a t t h a t stage. '"

Smith,

510 F.3d a t 1147-48

5 - OPINION AND ORDER -

Manning v . F o s t e r , 2 2 4 F . 3 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 3 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) .

Instead,

"counsel acts as the petition-er's agent and thus any attorney error in post-conviction proceedings is generally attributable to the petitioner himself." 501 U.S. a t 752-53). P e t i t i o n e r a r g u e s t h i s r u l e d o e s n o t a p p l y , b e c a u s e h i s PCR appellate attorney's misconduct went beyond assistance, and created an simple neglect or to

Smith, 510 F.3d a t 1148 ( c i t i n g Coleman,

ineffective

actual

impediment

Petitioner's ability to present his federal constitutional claims on appeal. Petitioner further argues that his appellate

attorney's actions were so antithetical to Petitioner's interests, that they cannot be attributed to Petitioner under the agency theory. Consistent with other judges in this District, this Court has previously rejected the agency argument advanced by Petitioner.

S e e H i l l v . C z e r n i a k , 2 0 0 8 WL 2 7 0 4 4 9 3 * 6 ( D . O r . 2 0 0 8 )

(citing

P o w e l l v . C z e r n i a k , 2 0 0 7 WL 5 3 9 4 3 6 (D. O r . 2 0 0 7 ) ; G o d d a r d v . H i l l , .
2 0 0 6 WL 3 2 2 7 8 8 6 (D. O r . 2 0 0 6 ) ; B u t c h e r v . C z e r n i a k , 2 0 0 6 WL 1 7 6 7 5 3 (D. O r . 2 0 0 6 ) ; W o r l e y v . T h o m p s o n , 2 0 0 5 WL 3 0 1 9 4 9 8 (D. O r . 2 0 0 5 ) ;

Thomas v . C o o k , 2 0 0 4 WL 1 7 2 3 9 4 8 ( D . O r . 2 0 0 4 ) ; s e e a l s o F a i r m a n v . Anderson, 188 F.3d 635, 643,
F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 1999)).

reh'g & reh'g en bane denied,

200

The reasoning i n those cases remains

persuasive.

6 - OPINION AND ORDER -

Petitioner's

allegation

of

ineffective

assistance

of

a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l i n h i s PCR p r o c e e d i n g d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e c a u s e sufficient to excuse the procedural default of the claims alleged i n h i s Amended P e t i t i o n f o r Writ of Habeas Corpus. As such,

Peti tioner i s not entitled to proceed with his· constitutional claims in this habeas corpus action. 1

CONCLUSION
F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e C o u r t DENIES t h e A m e n d e d P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f H a b e a s C o r p u s a n d DISMISSES t h i s a c t i o n . I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s

~day

of September, 2009.

~ ANNA J . BROWN
United States District Judge

IThe Court need not address whether P e t i t i o n e r has shown prejudice with respect to these claims. Smith, 510 F.3d a t 1147. 7 - O P I N I O N AND ORDER F:\Share\Brown-LawClerks\05-832campbel10926opinion.wpd