Allen v. Phillips

Summary

Findings and recommendations in a federal habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge recommends denying relief on claims concerning the denial of a Marsden motion to replace appointed counsel and alleged jury bias, concluding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient factual support and did not demonstrate an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Holdings

1. Federal habeas relief was not warranted on the Marsden claim because Allen failed to allege facts showing what grounds he presented to the trial court, what ruling the court made, or why the hearing was constitutionally inadequate.
2. Federal habeas relief was not warranted on the jury-composition claim because Allen's allegation that the jury shared an ethnic background with a victim, without additional facts concerning jury selection or peremptory challenges, did not establish a prima facie Batson violation or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
3. Allen was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he failed to allege the factual bases of his claims and neither statutory exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) applied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Allen was entitled to federal habeas relief because the state trial court allegedly denied his Marsden motion to replace appointed counsel without a constitutionally adequate inquiry.
2. Whether Allen was entitled to federal habeas relief on his claim that the jury was biased because jurors shared an ethnic background with one of the alleged victims.
3. Whether Allen's failure to plead supporting facts and develop the record barred relief and an evidentiary hearing under Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).

Disposition

other