Chas Harper v. Richard Brown
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13865
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2007 police executed a warrant at Harper's home and found 109.9 grams of methamphetamine, small amounts of heroin, a stolen firearm, and drug-paraphernalia; jury convicted Harper of dealing methamphetamine and heroin and receiving stolen property.
- Harper was found to be an habitual offender based on prior felonies; sentencing exposure included 20–50 years (meth), 6–20 years (heroin), and additional enhancement up to 30 years; judge imposed an aggregate 72-year term.
- On direct appeal counsel raised multiple claims and made a cursory request for sentence revision under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B); the Indiana Court of Appeals found the Rule 7(B) argument waived for lack of developed reasoning and affirmed.
- One appellate judge dissented in part, opining Harper’s Rule 7(B) claim might barely avoid waiver and would warrant reducing the meth sentence to the advisory term.
- Harper sought state postconviction relief arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for causing the Rule 7(B) waiver; the Indiana Court of Appeals assumed deficient performance but denied relief under Strickland prejudice prong, concluding a renewed Rule 7(B) argument would have failed because the sentence was not inappropriate.
- Harper petitioned for federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the state court reasonably applied Strickland and federal review cannot relitigate state-law determinations about sentence appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel's cursory Rule 7(B) argument rendered assistance constitutionally ineffective | Harper: waiver of Rule 7(B) argument was ineffective assistance prejudicing his appeal | State: even with developed argument, Rule 7(B) revision would have failed because sentence was not inappropriate under Indiana law | Court: Strickland applied reasonably; no prejudice because a Rule 7(B) challenge would have failed |
| Whether federal habeas may overturn state court's assessment that the sentence was "not inappropriate" under Rule 7(B) | Harper: state court misapplied state law and facts—federal review should correct error | State: determination that sentence was appropriate is a state-law ruling outside § 2254 federal relitigation | Court: federal courts cannot redecide state-law issues; habeas denied because state court reasonably applied Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (unreasonable application standard for habeas review explained)
- Jones v. Calloway, 842 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2016) (describing § 2254(d) review and Strickland in habeas context)
- Ward v. Neal, 835 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2016) (discussing unreasonable-application standard quoting Harrington)
- Miller v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 2016) (similar § 2254 challenge where state court’s conclusion that a Rule 7(B) argument would have been futile forecloses federal relief)