Dansby v. Hobbs
691 F.3d 934
8th Cir.2012Background
- This panel previously filed a June 21, 2012 opinion in Dansby v. Norris addressing COA expansion and the Martinez issue.
- The district court held Dansby’s ineffective-assistance claims procedurally defaulted for failure to raise them in state collateral review.
- Dansby argued Martinez v. Ryan created a debatable exception to the default rule; the panel rejected this argument.
- Dansby sought rehearing focused on Martinez and COA expansion; the court considered and denied rehearing.
- The court explained Martinez's narrow exception to Coleman v. Thompson and applied it to state collateral proceedings as limited.
- Arkansas law allowed raising ineffective-assistance claims via motion for new trial and on direct appeal; Tucker was overruled by Missildine, clarifying allowable routes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Martinez expansion to COA for defaulted claims | Dansby argues Martinez requires COA expansion | Martinez is narrow; does not broadly expand COA | Martinez does not make district ruling debatable |
| Publication of COA denial and scope of Martinez ruling | Court failed to call for supplemental briefing and published an opinion | Publication within court’s discretion; explanation permitted | Court did not exceed jurisdiction; explanation permissible and within discretion |
| Arkansas procedure for raising ineffective assistance | Arkansas forbids raising on direct appeal after postconviction, invoking Martinez | Arkansas allows raising via motion for new trial and direct appeal; Martinez limited | Arkansas procedures allowed; Martinez narrow exception does not broaden to this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (narrow exception to Coleman for ineffective assistance in initial-review collateral proceeding)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (ineffective assistance during state post-conviction cannot excuse default)
- Wooten v. Norris, 578 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2009) (applies Coleman rule in habeas context)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA requires merits overview, not a perfunctory denial)
- Tucker v. State, 313 Ark. 624, 855 S.W.2d 948 (1993) (Arkansas case on raising ineffective assistance via postconviction path)
- Missildine v. State, 863 S.W.2d 813 (Ark. 1993) (overruled Tucker on procedure for raising ineffective assistance on appeal)
- Hilliard v. State, 259 Ark. 81, 531 S.W.2d 463 (1976) (precludes certain claims not raised in trial but permits via postconviction relief)
- Halfacre v. State, 265 Ark. 378, 578 S.W.2d 237 (1979) (permits hearing on ineffective-assistance via postconviction context)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) (circuit precedent may rely on Coleman insofar as decisions support it)