Summary
The document is a magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding brought by Jiggs Dean Compton against Arkansas prison official Dexter Payne. It recommends dismissal of Compton’s claims as procedurally barred because they were not raised in state court or were not fairly presented as federal constitutional claims. It also recommends denial of a certificate of appealability.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Compton's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to challenge the probable-cause affidavit was procedurally barred because it was never presented in state court.
- Whether Compton's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to impeach the victim with an inconsistent pretrial statement was procedurally barred because he never filed a Rule 37 petition.
- Whether claims concerning a leading question by the prosecutor, the prosecutor's sentencing-phase Jaws comparison, and denial of a motion to quash the jury panel were procedurally barred because they were not fairly presented as federal constitutional claims.
- Whether Compton established cause and prejudice or actual innocence sufficient to excuse his procedural defaults.
- Whether Compton's claim that the felony information was amended late and that he was re-arraigned in his absence was procedurally barred.
Holdings
- A federal court cannot review a habeas claim that the petitioner failed to present to the state courts in accordance with state procedural rules unless the petitioner establishes cause and resulting prejudice or shows that refusing review would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
- A state-court claim is not fairly presented for federal habeas purposes when the petitioner relies solely on state law and does not identify a specific federal constitutional right, constitutional provision, federal constitutional case, or pertinent state case raising a federal constitutional issue.
- Because Arkansas ineffective-assistance claims must be raised in a Rule 37 petition, a petitioner who never files such a petition procedurally defaults those claims and cannot rely on them to establish cause for another default unless the applicable requirements are satisfied.
- A petitioner's pro se status, lack of education, below-average intelligence, unfamiliarity with legal procedure, or reliance on jailhouse lawyers does not ordinarily constitute external cause sufficient to excuse procedural default.
- A petitioner cannot overcome procedural default through actual innocence without new evidence affirmatively demonstrating innocence of the crime of conviction.
Key quotations
“A claim not so presented may nevertheless be considered in one of two instances. First, it can be considered if the petitioner can show cause for his procedural default and resulting prejudice. Second, the claim can be considered if the petitioner can show that the failure to consider the claim will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, that is, a constitutional violation has resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.”
“To be “fairly presented,” the petitioner must “refer to a specific federal constitutional right, a particular constitutional provision, a federal constitutional case, or a state case raising a pertinent federal constitutional issue.””
“Federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law”
Factual background
In April 2022, Compton was convicted of second-degree sexual assault involving an eleven-year-old girl. He received a twenty-year prison sentence enhanced by ten years for committing the offense in the presence of a child, with the sentences to run consecutively. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed after rejecting challenges concerning the jury pool, evidentiary rulings, and the sufficiency of the evidence. Compton did not pursue state post-conviction relief under Rule 37 before filing his federal habeas petition.
Procedural history
Compton was convicted in the Newton County Circuit Court of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment plus a consecutive ten-year enhancement. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. He did not file a state petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. He then filed a federal habeas petition, amended it twice, and raised additional claims in his reply. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because the claims were either never presented to the Arkansas courts or were presented solely as state-law claims, and Compton failed to establish cause, prejudice, or actual innocence sufficient to excuse the defaults.