White v. Thornell

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and denied Timothy White’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition with prejudice. The court held that some claims were procedurally defaulted, the Fourth Amendment claims were non-cognizable under Stone v. Powell, and the ineffective-assistance claim failed on the merits; it also denied a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. Grounds 1(a), 2(b), and 4 were procedurally defaulted because White failed to present them to the state courts in a procedurally appropriate manner, and he did not establish cause and actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice based on actual innocence to excuse the defaults.
2. Grounds 2(a) and 3 were not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings because the state courts provided White an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his Fourth Amendment claims.
3. Ground 1(b) failed on the merits because White did not establish either deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.
4. A certificate of appealability was denied because reasonable jurists would not find the resolution of White's claims debatable and the issues did not warrant encouragement to proceed further.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the claims in Grounds 1(a), 2(b), and 4 were procedurally defaulted and whether White established cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice based on actual innocence to excuse the defaults.
2. Whether the Fourth Amendment claims in Grounds 2(a) and 3 were cognizable in federal habeas proceedings when the state courts had provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate a probation plea offer, including whether counsel's performance was deficient and whether White suffered prejudice.
4. Whether White was entitled to a certificate of appealability.