169 F. Supp. 3d 1213
W.D. Okla.2016Background
- Budder, convicted at age 16 in Oklahoma of two counts of first-degree rape, one count of assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and one count of forcible oral sodomy; trial judge imposed consecutive life sentences (two life-without-parole for rapes originally) plus other terms.
- After Graham v. Florida, Oklahoma modified Budder’s rape life-without-parole sentences to life with the possibility of parole; sentences remained consecutive, producing parole eligibility only after 131.75 years (effectively life).
- Budder filed a § 2254 habeas petition claiming (1) his aggregate consecutive life terms are the functional equivalent of life without parole and violate the Eighth Amendment under Graham, and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to present/argue mitigating evidence.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting relief on the Eighth Amendment claim but denying ineffective-assistance claim; Budder did not object to the latter recommendation.
- The district court reviewed de novo, adopted the magistrate’s denial of ineffective assistance, but rejected the Graham-extension claim on AEDPA deference grounds, denying habeas relief while granting a certificate of appealability on the Eighth Amendment issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive aggregate sentences that make parole eligibility practically impossible violate Graham | Budder: consecutive life terms (parole only after 131.75 years) are the functional equivalent of life without parole and thus unconstitutional under Graham | State/OCCA: Graham prohibits only life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders; it does not clearly extend to aggregate consecutive sentences that effectively amount to life | Denied on habeas review: extension of Graham to consecutive aggregate sentences is not "clearly established" Supreme Court law; OCCA decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing by failing to present mitigating evidence | Budder: counsel failed to present/argue mitigating evidence to jury at sentencing | State: counsel’s performance did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair; OCCA decision rejecting ineffectiveness was reasonable | Denied: petitioner waived objections to magistrate recommendation; court adopts denial of ineffective-assistance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment forbids life-without-parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (extended Graham reasoning to mandatory life-without-parole for juvenile homicide offenders)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles less culpable; limits on most severe punishments for juveniles)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (use of national consensus in Eighth Amendment analysis)
- Bunch v. Smith, 685 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2012) (Graham does not clearly establish that aggregate consecutive fixed-term sentences that equal practical life without parole violate the Eighth Amendment)
- House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 2008) (framework for determining whether Supreme Court decisions constitute "clearly established" law under AEDPA)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standard: state-court decision must be contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law)