Bonney v. Wilson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5764
10th Cir.2016Background
- Steven Bonney, convicted after pleading guilty at 17 to sexual-offense counts involving two child relatives; sentence: two consecutive 15–20 year terms (second suspended to probation).
- Bonney later sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) on multiple grounds, including inadequate investigation of the children’s accounts and counsel’s alleged misrepresentations about plea benefits.
- Wyoming state district court denied some claims on the merits and granted summary judgment to the State on others; Bonney pursued federal habeas relief and initially obtained relief, which this Court reversed in part on earlier issues.
- On remand the federal district court granted summary judgment to respondents on several IAC claims; this appeal challenges (1) whether one IAC claim was procedurally defaulted and (2) the merits of other IAC claims about counsel’s misstatements and litigation choices.
- The Tenth Circuit held the procedural-default defense inadequate as applied to the claim that counsel failed to investigate inconsistencies in the children’s accounts (remanding that claim), but affirmed summary judgment for respondents on three substantive IAC claims (Count V dismissal, Pueblo County recommendation, P.M. statement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default of IAC claim for failing to investigate children’s accounts | Bonney: claim not defaulted because direct appeal would have required counsel to assert his own ineffectiveness and Wyoming courts do not evenhandedly require that | Respondents: claim defaulted under Wyo. Stat. §7-14-103(a)(i) for not raising on direct appeal | Court: procedural ground inadequate here because Wyoming has not evenly required trial counsel to allege their own ineffectiveness; federal court should reach the claim (remanded) |
| Appeal waiver as basis for procedural default | Bonney: waiver unenforceable because plea allegedly induced by IAC; Wyoming hasn’t evenhandedly enforced waivers in such cases | Respondents: waiver bars the claim | Held: waiver not invoked below and Wyoming has not uniformly enforced waivers when ineffective assistance is alleged; waiver cannot justify default |
| IAC for failing to seek dismissal of Count V (third-degree charge) | Bonney: counsel should have moved to dismiss Count V because statutory elements didn’t fit (he was a minor; victim older) | Respondents: no prejudice because Count V was dismissed by plea and prosecutors could have amended charges | Held: summary judgment for respondents affirmed — no prejudice because plea dismissed Count V and amendment options meant no reasonable chance of a better outcome |
| IAC for exaggerating value of prosecutor’s recommendation to Pueblo County | Bonney: counsel overstated threat of Pueblo charges, would not have agreed to amended plea if he’d known Pueblo wouldn’t prosecute | Respondents: no prejudice; original plea already required same guilty pleas and recommendations; amended plea was no worse and mitigated risk | Held: summary judgment for respondents affirmed — no reasonable probability a rational defendant would reject amendment |
| IAC for misrepresenting P.M.’s statements (video length, number of acts) | Bonney: counsel exaggerated strength and volume of P.M.’s statements, inducing plea | Respondents: state court found P.M.’s potential testimony could be damaging and lead to additional charges; no prejudice | Held: summary judgment for respondents affirmed — state court’s factual findings were reasonable and foreclosed prejudice under Strickland/Padilla |
Key Cases Cited
- English v. Cody, 146 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir.) (procedural-default doctrine and habeas review)
- Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1982) (state procedural rules adequate only if evenhandedly applied)
- Anderson v. Attorney General, 342 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.) (de novo review of procedural-bar determinations)
- Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir.) (procedural default is an affirmative defense; burden on respondent)
- Neill v. Gibson, 263 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir.) (procedural bar inadequate where same counsel represented defendant at trial and on appeal)
- Walker v. Gibson, 228 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir.) (same-counsel context negates procedural bar for IAC claims)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (prejudice standard for rejecting plea under Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bonney v. Wilson, 754 F.3d 872 (10th Cir.) (prior Tenth Circuit decision addressing related IAC issues in Bonney’s case)