Fierling v. Superintendent of Snake River Correctional Institution

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied Lennard Paul Fierling’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that his challenge to his sentence was procedurally defaulted and that his ineffective-assistance claims were rejected by the state post-conviction court in decisions entitled to deference under AEDPA. The court denied relief with prejudice and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. Fierling's ex post facto challenge to his sentence was procedurally defaulted because he did not present it to any Oregon state court and could no longer do so; he showed no basis to overcome the default.
2. The state post-conviction court's rejection of Fierling's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain a forensic psychologist was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable factual determination.
3. The state post-conviction court's rejection of Fierling's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present additional witnesses was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable factual determination.
4. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Fierling had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Fierling's ex post facto challenge to the sentence was procedurally defaulted because he failed to present it to the Oregon state courts.
2. Whether the Oregon post-conviction court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in rejecting Fierling's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to retain a forensic psychologist.
3. Whether the Oregon post-conviction court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in rejecting Fierling's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's alleged failure to investigate and call exculpatory or sexual-propensity witnesses.
4. Whether Fierling was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed