Benjamin Asaeli v. Mike Obenland
673 F. App'x 788
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Benjamin Salofi Asaeli, a Washington state prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition after state convictions for homicide-related offenses.
- Asaeli raised federal claims that trial evidence and cumulative errors violated his due process/fair trial rights; that trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a manslaughter instruction and for not calling additional character witnesses; and that prosecutorial use of a PowerPoint slide misstated law/denied defense.
- He also challenged double jeopardy and contended a due process violation when the state trial court vacated his second-degree murder conviction without his consent (the court dismissed it after the State conceded both first- and second-degree convictions could not stand).
- The district court dismissed several claims as procedurally defaulted because Asaeli failed to fairly present them to the state appellate court and missed the deadline for a personal restraint petition; he did not show cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to excuse default.
- On the merits, the district court (and the state court) rejected Asaeli’s prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective-assistance claims; the appellate panel applied AEDPA deference and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of alleged prejudicial gang evidence & cumulative error | Asaeli: admission and cumulative errors denied fair trial and due process | State: claims were procedurally defaulted and meritless | Court: Claims procedurally defaulted; dismissal affirmed |
| Failure to request lesser-included manslaughter instruction (IAC) | Asaeli: counsel ineffective for not requesting instruction | State: claim defaulted and, on the merits, insufficient under Strickland | Court: Claim defaulted; IAC claim rejected as not meeting Strickland/AEDPA standards |
| Prosecutor PowerPoint misstating law/denying defense (due process) | Asaeli: slide presentation misstated law, trivialized burden, denied defense | State: state court reasonably applied Darden standard; not a due process violation | Court: AEDPA deference — state-court rejection neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent; claim denied |
| Failure to call additional character witnesses (IAC) | Asaeli: counsel ineffective for not calling more character witnesses | State: state court reasonably applied Strickland and facts did not support relief | Court: Denial upheld; not contrary/unreasonable under Strickland/AEDPA |
| Double jeopardy / vacatur of second-degree murder conviction & separate first-degree assault conviction | Asaeli: vacatur without consent and separate assault conviction violated double jeopardy/due process | State: vacatur followed concession that dual murder convictions improper; assault conviction concerns distinct victim and not double jeopardy | Court: State-court handling reasonable under Supreme Court law; no double jeopardy violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896 (9th Cir.) (habeas review standard and procedural-default discussion)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial-misconduct due-process standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference to state-court adjudications)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (double jeopardy and related sentencing principles)
- Custer v. Hill, 378 F.3d 968 (double jeopardy principles for separate victims)