Appleby v. Cline, 711 F. App'x 459

Background

Appleby, convicted in Kansas for 2002 capital murder and attempted rape, received a "hard 50" life sentence (life without parole for 50 years) plus a consecutive term; attempted-rape conviction later vacated as multiplicitous on direct appeal.
He fled Kansas; was arrested in Connecticut on an outstanding 1998 Connecticut warrant for unrelated charges; Kansas detectives were present and obtained a two-and-a-half hour confession after Appleby waived Miranda rights.
State courts denied post-conviction relief on multiple claims; Appleby filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising Miranda/self-incrimination, Apprendi/Alleyne challenge to the hard-50 scheme, and multiple ineffective-assistance claims (failure to pursue suppression based on stale warrant and detectives’ jurisdiction; failure to present a mental-health expert).
The district court denied habeas relief, applying AEDPA deference to the state-court merits rulings; Appleby sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that denial.
The Tenth Circuit panel denied a COA and dismissed the appeal, concluding no reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s rulings under applicable Supreme Court precedent and AEDPA standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of confession (Fifth/14th Miranda invocation)	Appleby argues his multiple references to an attorney during Connecticut book-in were an invocation of the right to counsel, making later Kansas interrogation and confession inadmissible.	State argues Appleby did not unambiguously request counsel for interrogation; requests were ambiguous and occurred before Kansas interrogation, so waiver was valid.	Court held no COA: state court reasonably applied Davis/McNeil/Montejo; Appleby failed to show unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights.
Hard-50 scheme under Apprendi/Alleyne	Appleby contends Kansas’s hard-50 (judge-found aggravators by preponderance) violates Apprendi/Alleyne because facts increasing mandatory minimum must be jury-found beyond reasonable doubt.	State argues at time of the Kansas Supreme Court decision (2009) Apprendi did not require jury finding for facts increasing mandatory minimum; the decision complied with then-governing law.	Court held no COA: under AEDPA the state-court ruling is measured against Supreme Court law existing when decided; Alleyne post-dated the state decision.
Ineffective assistance — suppression (stale Connecticut warrant)	Appleby says trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for not moving to suppress based on stale warrant/delay.	State argues delay was reasonable because Appleby eluded authorities and used aliases; suppression motion would have failed, so no prejudice.	Court held no COA: state court reasonably applied Strickland — no prejudice shown.
Ineffective assistance — jurisdiction (Kansas detectives questioning in Connecticut)	Appleby argues counsel should have sought suppression because Kansas detectives lacked geographic authority.	State contends Kansas statute allowed officers to act when requested or in fresh pursuit; Connecticut officers executed the warrant; Appleby consented to speak.	Court held no COA: state court reasonably applied Strickland — counsel’s failure not deficient or prejudicial.
Ineffective assistance — failure to call mental-health expert	Appleby contends counsel was ineffective for not calling Dr. Hough, whose diagnosis might negate premeditation.	State notes Dr. Hough’s opinions were limited/unhelpful, counsel reasonably chose alternate strategy, and consulted experts who agreed.	Court held no COA: state court reasonably applied Strickland — strategic decision objectively reasonable and no prejudice shown.

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (suspect must unambiguously request counsel for interrogation)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (Fifth Amendment right to counsel for custodial interrogation requires an express desire for assistance)
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (Miranda/Edwards inquiry focuses on interrogation context, not prior proceedings)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and Fifth Amendment custodial protections)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts that increase maximum sentence must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal habeas review limited to the state-court record)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for certificate of appealability)
Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1 (doubly deferential standard for ineffective-assistance review)
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (prejudice standard under Strickland in § 2254 context)