Blaurock v. State of Kansas
686 F. App'x 597
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Blaurock was convicted after two trials (2005–2006) of sexual offenses; appeals to Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court were unsuccessful.
- He filed a lengthy state post-conviction motion under Kan. Stat. § 60-1507 raising 41 grounds; the trial court denied relief and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed; Kansas Supreme Court denied review.
- In federal court he filed a § 2254 petition asserting 31 grounds (mixture of claims raised on direct appeal, in state post-conviction, and some not previously presented to the Kansas Supreme Court).
- The district court found 3 claims exhausted (ineffective assistance at the 60-1507 hearing; alleged violation of Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 183(j); violation of Kansas speedy-trial statute) and rejected the other 28 as unexhausted or procedurally defaulted, then denied relief on the merits; it denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s procedural rulings and merits determinations and denied a COA for all 31 claims, dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether many federal habeas claims were exhausted or procedurally defaulted | Blaurock contends numerous claims were preserved via direct appeal or his 60-1507 filings (or are properly before federal court) | State argues most claims were not presented to the Kansas Supreme Court and thus are unexhausted or otherwise procedurally barred under Kansas rules | Court held 26 of 31 claims were procedurally defaulted or unexhausted (anticipatory bar); only two claims (13,14) arguably exhausted but most others barred; COA denied on procedural grounds |
| Admissibility/use of June 1, 2005 DNA and related limiting jury instructions (claims 13 & 14) | Blaurock argued DNA from June 1 was improperly used to prove May 25 conduct and limiting instruction was defective | State argues admissibility and instruction issues were matters of state law and were reviewed and resolved on direct appeal | Court construed these as primarily state-law evidentiary questions; reasonable jurists could debate exhaustion but not that federal habeas relief is warranted; COA denied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at 60-1507 post-conviction hearing (claim 26) | Blaurock claimed his 60-1507 counsel failed to object to Rule 183(j) violations and otherwise performed ineffectively at the collateral hearing | State notes § 2254(i) bars ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims based on collateral post-conviction proceedings | Court held § 2254(i) precludes federal habeas relief for ineffective assistance in collateral proceedings; COA denied |
| Speedy-trial claim under Kansas law and continuance for DNA analysis (claim 30) | Blaurock asserts the 122-day continuance between trials violated Kan. Stat. § 22-3402 and his speedy-trial rights | State points to Kansas Court of Appeals ruling that (1) statutory speedy-trial protection did not apply during time he was detained due to a prior conviction and (2) continuance was justified to allow DNA testing | Court treated this as a state-law issue not cognizable on federal habeas; even assuming federal right, 122 days not presumptively prejudicial; COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for COA when petition denied on procedural grounds)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (scope of COA review; requires more than absence of frivolity)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (state-exhaustion doctrine: one full round of appellate review)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (adequate and independent state-ground doctrine; procedural default)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas does not lie for state-law evidentiary errors)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (limits of federal habeas review on state-law issues)
- Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (state-court rulings can violate due process only if arbitrary or capricious)
- Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935 (AEDPA deference in COA analysis)
- Coppage v. McKune, 534 F.3d 1279 (Tenth Circuit COA principles)
- United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262 (speedy-trial factors and presumptive prejudice threshold)