Benji Manns v. Gary Beckstrom, 695 F. App'x 883

Background

In Feb 2005 Manns sold pills to undercover officers (one buy yielded oxycodone and hydromorphone; a later buy involved morphine), and was indicted on three first-degree drug‑trafficking counts and found to be a first‑degree persistent felony offender.
Jury convicted on all counts; judge imposed three consecutive 20‑year terms (total 60 years) under Kentucky practice then requiring consecutives under Devore.
On direct appeal Manns did not initially ask the Kentucky Supreme Court to overrule Devore; Peyton (which overruled Devore) issued 17 days after Manns’ reply brief and the court affirmed; Manns raised Peyton in a rehearing petition, which was denied.
In state collateral proceedings Manns did not raise ineffective‑assistance claims about trial counsel’s failure to assert a Kentucky double‑jeopardy challenge or appellate counsel’s failure to raise Devore earlier; those defaults persisted into federal habeas.
Federal habeas court denied relief; this court granted COA on two ineffective‑assistance claims (trial and appellate counsel). The majority affirms on the merits (no need to resolve procedural‑default excusal).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not raising a Kentucky double‑jeopardy challenge to multiple counts based on one sale of multiple Schedule II substances	Manns: counsel should have invoked Commonwealth v. Grubb (single transaction of same schedule substances cannot support multiple convictions) so counsel’s failure prejudiced him	State: Kentucky law had adopted the Blockburger test by Manns’ trial; Grubb’s single‑impulse approach was not controlling, so no meritorious claim and no prejudice	Majority: No prejudice — Kentucky double‑jeopardy law had moved to Blockburger, so counsel’s omission did not violate Strickland; claim fails on the merits
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not asking the Kentucky Supreme Court to overrule Devore in initial briefing (rather than only in rehearing)	Manns: Peyton overturned Devore while briefing was closing; counsel should have supplemented or requested leave to raise Peyton so Manns could get concurrent sentencing or resentencing	State: It was reasonable for appellate counsel not to ask the state high court to overrule itself; longstanding precedent supported Devore and counsel timely raised the issue after Peyton issued	Majority: No deficiency — asking a state supreme court to overrule a long‑standing decision was not objectively unreasonable and counsel acted reasonably; Strickland not met
Whether federal procedural‑default doctrine should be excused under Martinez/Trevino for state collateral review defaults	Manns: seeks Martinez/Trevino (and Woolbright) to excuse defaults and reach merits	State: procedural default remains; but court need not decide because merits fail	Court: Declines to resolve procedural‑default issue because both claims fail on the merits even if default excused
Whether Manns was entitled to relief (vacatur/resentencing) if ineffective assistance established	Manns: vacatur of duplicative conviction and resentencing for remaining counts could reduce total term	State: because Strickland not satisfied, no relief warranted	Majority: No relief — ineffective‑assistance claims fail on merits; dissent disagrees and would grant relief on both theories

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same‑elements test for double jeopardy)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited equitable exception to procedural default where counsel was ineffective in initial-review collateral proceeding)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (extends Martinez in certain procedural contexts)
Peyton v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 504 (Ky. 2008) (overruled Devore; sentencing court has discretion whether newly imposed sentences run consecutively to each other)
Devore v. Commonwealth, 662 S.W.2d 829 (Ky. 1984) (had required consecutive sentences under Ky. statute prior to Peyton)
Commonwealth v. Grubb, 862 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1993) (held multiple convictions for sale of different named substances in same schedule in one transaction impermissible under Kentucky double jeopardy analysis)
Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. 1996) (adopted Blockburger framework for Kentucky double‑jeopardy analysis, affecting Ingram/Grubb lineage)
Woolbright v. Crews, 791 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2015) (discusses application of Martinez/Trevino in §2254 context)
Goff v. Bagley, 601 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2010) (counsel's failure to raise cognizable state‑law claim can constitute ineffective assistance under federal standard)
United States v. Pope, 561 F.2d 663 (6th Cir. 1977) (upheld multiple counts from single sale of multiple substances under federal analysis)