Schwenke v. State of Utah
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING HABEAS PETITION. It is therefore ordered that this habeas corpus petition under 2254 is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 09/15/2011. (kpf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________________________________________
) MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
) DENYING HABEAS PETITION
Petitioner,
)
) Case No. 2:08-CV-467 TS
v.
)
) District Judge Ted Stewart
STATE OF UTAH,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_________________________________________________________________
A. PAUL SCHWENKE,
Petitioner, A. Paul Schwenke, an inmate at Utah State
Prison, petitions for habeas corpus relief.1
The Court denies
him.
BACKGROUND
A jury convicted Petitioner of securities fraud, a seconddegree felony, for which he was sentenced to one-to-fifteen
years; attempted theft by deception, a third-degree felony, with
a zero-to-five-year sentence; communications fraud, a seconddegree felony, with a one-to-fifteen-year sentence; and pattern
of unlawful activity, a second-degree felony, with a one-tofifteen-year sentence.
On direct appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals, Petitioner
raised the following errors:
(1) violation of his right against
double jeopardy; (2) erroneous jury instructions on elements of
attempted theft by deception and communications fraud; (3)
insufficient evidence to support convictions for securities and
1
See 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (2011).
communications fraud and pattern of unlawful activity; (4)
ineffective assistance of defense counsel; and, (5) erroneous
amendment of the charge of theft to attempted theft by
deception.2
The court declined to address these issues on the
merits because they were inadequately briefed, violating the Utah
Rules of Appellate Procedure.3
The first three issues were also
rejected for merits review because they were not preserved in the
trial court.
The Utah Supreme Court denied a petition for writ
of certiorari.4
Petitioner's current petition to this Court attacks these
alleged violations in his state-court criminal proceedings:
(1)
double jeopardy; and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel
in failing to adequately address issues of double jeopardy, realestate conveyances, parol evidence, communications fraud, pattern
of unlawful activity, subpoenaing attorney Smedley, and amendment
of theft to attempted theft by deception.
The State responds to the petition, correctly arguing that
these grounds are procedurally defaulted, as they were rejected
on procedural grounds by the Utah Court of Appeals and denied
further treatment by the Utah Supreme Court.
2
3
4
State v. Schwenke, 2007 UT App 354U.
Id. ¶ 1 (citing Utah R. App. P. 24) .
State v. Schwenke, 187 P.3d 232 (Utah 2008).
2
ANALYSIS
This Court may not consider issues "defaulted in state court
on independent and adequate state procedural grounds 'unless
[petitioner] can demonstrate cause for the default and actual
prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or
demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a
fundamental miscarriage of justice.'"5
Under Utah procedural law, Utah's appellate rules require an
appellant to provide a brief containing a "statement of the
issues presented for review" and arguments incorporating "the
contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the
issues presented, including the grounds for reviewing any issues
not preserved in the trial court, with citations to the
authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on."6
Further, an appellant, who does not argue in his opening brief
that plain error or exceptional circumstances existed, is
ineligible for appellate review of issues that could have been
but were not raised at trial.7
5
Hamm v. Saffle, 300 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Coleman
v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991)).
6
Utah R. App. P. 24(a).
7
State v. Pinder, 2005 UT 15, ¶ 45, 114 P.3d 551 ("'Under ordinary
circumstances, we will not consider an issue brought for the first time on
appeal unless the trial court committed plain error or exceptional
circumstances exist.'" (quoting State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29, ¶ 16, 94
P.3d 186)); Coleman v. Stevens, 2000 UT 98, ¶ 9, 17 P.3d 1122 ("[W]e will not
consider matters raised for the first time in the reply brief.").
3
Based on the Court's review of Utah cases, these rules are
"independent and adequate state procedural ground[s]" for
dismissal of Petitioner's case in that they are "'strictly or
regularly followed' and employed 'evenhandedly to all similar
claims.'"8
Under the federal law outlined earlier, this Court
must therefore dismiss Petitioner's defaulted issues unless cause
and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice redeems
their default.9
Petitioner perhaps argues both cause and prejudice and a
fundamental miscarriage of justice.
Specifically, Petitioner
asserts cause and prejudice stem from his lack of access to a law
library and fundamental miscarriage of justice stems from his
innocence based on the merits of his substantive claims.
The Court first examines cause and prejudice, as to
Petitioner's assertion that his lack of access to a law library
or certain legal resources provides a path to allow this Court to
address his procedurally defaulted claims on the merits.
"[T]o
8
See Hamm, 300 F.3d at 1216 (quoting Hickman v. Sears, 160 F.3d 1269,
1271 (10th Cir. 1998)) (quotation omitted in original); see, e.g., Peak Alarm
Co. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2010 UT 22, ¶ 67 (declining to address asserted
trial-court error when appellant's brief provided no meaningful analysis on
issue); Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2, ¶ 50 (same); State v.
Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 966 (Utah 1989) (declining to address asserted trialcourt error when appellant's brief provided no meaningful analysis on issue);
State v. Pledger, 896 P.2d 1226, 1229 n.5 (Utah 1995) (declining to consider
on appeal issues not raised at trial, when defendant failed to argue plain
error or exceptional circumstances); State v. Womack, 967 P.2d 536, 540 n.1
(Utah Ct. App. 1998) (declining to address asserted trial-court error when
appellant's brief provided no meaningful analysis on issue).
9
See Gonzales v. Jordan, No. 01-6415, 2002 WL 1203905, at *3-4 (10th
Cir. June 5, 2002) (unpublished).
4
satisfy the 'cause' standard, Petitioner must show that 'some
objective factor external to the defense' impeded his compliance
with Utah's procedural rules."10
Meanwhile, to demonstrate
prejudice, "'[t]he habeas petitioner must show not merely that .
. . errors . . . created a possibility of prejudice, but that
they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage.'"11
Petitioner has not done this.
Under Tenth Circuit case law,
the lack of certain legal resources and legal knowledge does not
carry Petitioner's burden to show cause.12
factor internal to Petitioner's defense.
Indeed, this is a
Moreover, the fact that
Petitioner listed a full page of legal citations at the beginning
of his appellate brief belies his assertion that he had
inadequate access to or understanding of the law.
The Court
further notes that Petitioner "is not in the same position as
most pro se litigants in that, as a disbarred attorney, he is law
trained."13
Finally, it is the Utah Court of Appeals'
determination under state law that Petitioner did not properly
10
Dulin v. Cook, 957 F.2d 758, 760 (10th Cir. 1992) (citations omitte d).
11
Butler v. Kansas, No. 02-3211, 2002 WL 31888316, at *3 (10th Cir. Dec.
30, 2002) (unpublished) (alteration in original) (quoting Murray v. Carrier,
477 U.S. 478, 494 (1986) (emphasis in original)).
12
See also Gilkey v. Kansas, No. 02-3227, 2003 WL 245639, at *2 (10th
Cir. Feb. 4, 2003) (unpublished) (holding limited knowledge of the law is
insufficient to show cause for procedural default); Rodriguez v. Maynard, 948
F.2d 684, 688 (10th Cir. 1991) (concluding petitioner's pro se status and his
corresponding lack of awareness and training on legal issues do not constitute
adequate cause for his failure to adequately raise claims).
13
Schwenke, ¶ 2, n.1.
5
follow briefing rules.
Although Petitioner hotly contests that
determination, because it involves an interpretation of state
law, it is not the kind of question that may be reviewed in a
federal habeas proceeding.14
Finally, Petitioner suggests that a miscarriage of justice
will occur if this Court does not address the defaulted claims in
his petition.
To be plausible, an actual-innocence claim must be
grounded on solid evidence not adduced at trial.15
Because such
evidence is so rare, "'in virtually every case, the allegation of
actual innocence has been summarily rejected.'"16
Petitioner is
burdened with making "a proper showing of factual innocence."17
Petitioner's mere rehashing of the evidence and alleged
violations of his civil rights in state proceedings do nothing to
convince this Court that the exception applies.
Indeed, the
kernel of the Court's analysis regarding actual innocence is not
whether Petitioner urgently believes there were errors--or
whether there were indeed errors--in the state proceedings, but
whether Petitioner is factually innocent.
This factual innocence
14
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S.
19, 21 (1975).
15
Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998).
16
Id. (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995) (citation
omitted)).
17
Byrns v. Utah, No. 98-4085, 1998 WL 874865, at *3 (10th Cir. Dec. 16,
1998) (unpublished) (citing Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1992)).
6
must also be supported with new evidence, which Petitioner has
not provided.
In sum, the Court concludes that Petitioner's issues are
procedurally defaulted.
And, these issues do not qualify for
consideration under the cause-and-prejudice or miscarriage-ofjustice exceptions to the procedural bar.
The Court thus denies
Petitioner federal habeas relief.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner's challenges are procedurally barred and do not
qualify for exceptional treatment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
this habeas corpus petition under § 2254 is DENIED.
the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.
DATED this 15th day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
CHIEF JUDGE TED STEWART
United States District Court
7
The Clerk of
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?