Ugenio DeJesus Ruby-Ruiz v. Sharon Rose

Summary

The document is a memorandum opinion and order from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee addressing Ugenio DeJesus Ruby-Ruiz’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Ruby-Ruiz alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to seek severance of offenses and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise issues from the motion for new trial. The court denied the petition.

Holdings

1. An ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim that was presented to the state post-conviction trial court but omitted from the appeal from denial of post-conviction relief is procedurally defaulted.
2. The Martinez exception does not excuse a procedural default occurring during an appeal from the initial state post-conviction proceeding.
3. Petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief because the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reasonably concluded that he failed to demonstrate prejudice from appellate counsel's failure to raise additional issues from the motion for new trial.
4. A certificate of appealability should be denied because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the resolution of petitioner's claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim based on failure to file a pretrial motion to sever was procedurally defaulted.
2. Whether the procedural default of the severance claim could be excused based on alleged ineffective assistance during the initial state post-conviction proceedings.
3. Whether the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reasonably applied Strickland in rejecting petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim for failure to raise issues from the motion for new trial.
4. Whether petitioner was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed