Bray v. Andrews
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8482
6th Cir.2011Background
- Bray was convicted of complicity to murder by an Ohio jury; she rejected a plea to involuntary manslaughter.
- Ohio Court of Appeals found no prejudice from trial counsel's failure to advise about complicity; advised post-conviction relief but concluded meritless.
- Original plea terms and surrounding evidence were not in the direct-review record.
- Bray pursued state appellate avenues, then sought Ohio Supreme Court relief, which was dismissed sua sponte.
- Bray then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; district court granted relief conditionally.
- This Sixth Circuit reverses, holding Bray exhausted remedies and the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of state remedies under AEDPA | Bray exhausted by presenting to Ohio Supreme Court | State argues lack of proper presentation to appellate courts | Exhaustion satisfied; fairly presented to state courts. |
| Procedural default analysis | No independent state ground bars review | Rule-based default applies | Not procedurally defaulted; the claim adjudicated on the merits. |
| Standard of review under AEDPA | State court merits adjudication should be reviewed de novo | Apply AEDPA deferential review | Apply AEDPA deference; review limited to state-court record. |
| Merits of IAC claim (plea-bargain prejudice) | Counsel's failure to inform about complicity prejudiced Bray | Record shows no reasonable probability Bray would accept plea | Ohio court's merits ruling not contrary to or unreasonable application of clearly established law. |
| Constitutional holding scope | Plea-stage IAC grounds support habeas relief | Record insufficient to show prejudice | District court relief reversed; state court decision affirmed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (S. Ct. 1999) (requires full and fair opportunity to resolve claims in state courts.)
- Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2009) (fair presentation principle for exhaustion in the Sixth Circuit.)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (S. Ct. 2000) (granting relief only if state court decision unreasonable on law or facts.)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (S. Ct. 1991) (procedural default requires independent state ground.)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deferential review; fairminded jurists could disagree.)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (S. Ct. 2011) (limits evidence to record before state court.)
- Magana v. Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2001) (Strickland prejudice requires showing reasonable probability of guilty plea would have been entered.)
- Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (S. Ct. 2011) (Strickland plea negotiations context with uncertainty.)
- Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2003) (fair presentation and adjudication principles in habeas.)