Dunn v. Miller-Stout, 2:12-cv-00652

Dunn, a state prisoner, seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254 from King County Superior Court convictions for first degree kidnapping, first degree child molestation, and six counts of possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
He is confined at Airway Heights Corrections Center, Washington.
The State's case linked Dunn to the crimes via physical evidence (semen on the victim) and DNA, with additional computer-derived depictions of minors prior to and during the kidnapping.
Initial investigations focused on Walcutt (the apartment was in Walcutt’s name); later Dunn was identified and arrested after warrants and searches revealed child pornography on his computers.
The jury found Dunn guilty on all counts; the court imposed exceptional sentences totaling 360 months for kidnapping and child molestation and 60 months for each depictions count, running concurrently.
Petitioner pursued multiple state court avenues, culminating in federal habeas review where he raises incompetence during trial and ineffective assistance of counsel related to competency challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Dunn competent to stand trial?	Dunn asserts he could not rationally assist and understand the proceedings.	Respondent contends the state courts properly found Dunn competent based on pretrial evaluation.	Competence upheld; no reversible error found.
Was counsel ineffective for not challenging Dunn’s competency during trial?	Dunn claims his counsel should have revisited competency given trial-time behavior.	Respondent argues no basis to revisit as competency was properly evaluated and Dunn failed to show prejudice.	Procedural default; claim denied on exhaustion and default grounds.
Did Dunn properly exhaust his ineffective assistance claim in state court?	Dunn contends exhaustion was satisfied by presenting the claim in state petitions.	Respondent asserts the claim was not presented to the Washington Supreme Court and is procedurally defaulted.	Default; claim procedurally barred under state law; no federal relief.

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (exhaustion requires fair presentation of federal claims in state court)
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (fair presentation includes clearly presenting federal issues to state courts)
Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982) (substance of federal habeas claims must be presented to state courts)
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (requirement to exhaust with respect to all federal claims)
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (fair presentation to state supreme court for discretionary review)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (standard for competency to stand trial)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competence standard includes ability to consult with counsel with rational understanding)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA deference standard: contrary or unreasonable application)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (objectively unreasonable application standard for state court decisions)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA standard for substantial showing of a constitutional right)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice for procedural default)