Jiggs Dean Compton v. Dexter Payne

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.

Holdings

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. A petitioner cannot overcome procedural default through actual innocence without new evidence affirmatively demonstrating innocence of the crime of conviction.

Questions Presented

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Whether Compton established cause and prejudice or actual innocence sufficient to excuse his procedural defaults.
5. Whether Compton's claim that the felony information was amended late and that he was re-arraigned in his absence was procedurally barred.

Disposition

dismissed