Dentrell Brown v. Richard Brown, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13063

Background

This is an appeal concerning whether Indiana prisoners can use the Martinez/Trevino equitable exception to overcome procedural default of trial-counsel ineffective-assistance (Strickland) claims in federal habeas corpus.
Federal habeas review is ordinarily barred unless state remedies were exhausted; procedural defaults may be excused only for cause (Coleman).
Martinez and Trevino created a narrow exception allowing ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims to overcome default when state law or practice effectively prevents raising them on direct appeal.
A 3-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit held that Martinez/Trevino applies to Indiana prisoners, allowing certain defaulted Strickland claims to proceed in federal court.
Judges Sykes and Easterbrook dissented from denial of rehearing en banc, arguing the panel improperly expanded Martinez/Trevino because Indiana permits Strickland claims on direct appeal and provides procedures (Woods) to develop the record.
The dissent relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Davila (and other precedent) to emphasize Martinez/Trevino is narrow and should not be extended to Indiana’s context; the petition for rehearing en banc was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martinez/Trevino exception applies to defaulted Strickland claims by Indiana prisoners	Martinez/Trevino should apply because postconviction procedures often determine whether default blocks federal review	Indiana does not move Strickland claims outside direct appeal; state law and Woods permit direct-review Strickland claims and fact development	Panel said Martinez/Trevino applies; en banc rehearing was denied (dissent would reverse)
Whether attorney error in state postconviction proceedings can constitute "cause" to excuse procedural default	Error by postconviction counsel can be cause under Martinez when state law/channeling makes collateral review the primary vehicle	Coleman bars attorney-error-as-cause for postconviction counsel unless Martinez/Trevino narrow exception applies; Indiana’s practice does not trigger it	The controversy remains: panel applied the exception; dissent argues Coleman controls and exception doesn’t apply here
Whether Indiana law requires Strickland claims on collateral review or forecloses effective presentation on direct appeal	Petitioner: Indiana practice effectively forces reliance on collateral proceedings	Brown/State: Indiana explicitly permits Strickland claims on direct appeal and provides procedures (Woods) to develop record	Dissent: Indiana falls outside Trevino rationale; panel reached opposite conclusion
Whether Davila supports limiting expansion of Martinez/Trevino	Petitioner: Davila’s limitation of Martinez/Trevino to narrow contexts cautions against expansion	Respondent: Panel nonetheless found Indiana circumstances warrant applying the exception	Court denied rehearing en banc; dissent invoked Davila to argue against expansion

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default and cause standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (narrow exception allowing cause for defaulted Strickland claims when state requires collateral presentation)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (extension of Martinez where state practice effectively foreclosed direct review)
Davila v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2058 (Supreme Court stressing Martinez/Trevino is narrow and cautioning against expansion)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal habeas and comity/finality principles)
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (federal habeas costs to federalism)
Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 1998) (Indiana permits direct-appeal Strickland claims and provides record-development procedures)