Eaton v. Pacheco
931 F.3d 1009
| 10th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 1988 Lisa Kimmell was murdered; DNA linked Dale Eaton to the crime in 2002 and he was convicted (2004) of murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and robbery and sentenced to death.
- On direct appeal the Wyoming Supreme Court (WSC) remanded under Calene for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims; the WSC later affirmed convictions and sentence. Eaton pursued state postconviction relief, then a federal §2254 habeas petition.
- The federal district court denied Eaton relief on a Brady claim and the guilt-phase IAC (competency) claim, but granted relief on the sentencing-phase IAC and an appeal-phase IAC claim based on newly developed mitigation evidence, vacating the death sentence and issuing a conditional writ allowing the State 120 days to elect resentencing.
- Eaton moved under Rule 59(e) to convert the conditional writ to an unconditional writ barring resentencing (arguing resentencing cannot cure the Sixth Amendment error because mitigation witnesses are now unavailable); the district court denied the motion on comity grounds.
- After the 120-day period expired the State did not timely comply with the writ’s counsel-appointment requirement; the district court found noncompliance but declined to find the State waived resentencing rights, partly because Eaton had told the state trial court further proceedings were premature.
- Eaton appealed multiple rulings; the Tenth Circuit consolidated appeals and affirmed the district court on all challenged points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eaton) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guilt‑phase IAC (competency to stand trial) — evidentiary scope | District court should consider new federal‑court evidence of incompetence; WSC did not fully adjudicate performance prong so §2254(d) deference inapplicable | WSC adjudicated the claim on the merits; §2254(d)/Pinholster limits review to state‑court record | Affirmed: WSC adjudicated both Strickland prongs; federal review limited to state record; Eaton failed to satisfy §2254(d) |
| Rule 59(e) motion to bar resentencing (unconditional writ) | An unconditional writ was required because lost/unavailable mitigation witnesses mean resentencing cannot cure Sixth Amendment error | District court should defer resentencing‑related factual and constitutional questions to state courts (comity); Eaton had sought only conditional relief earlier | Affirmed: denial of Rule 59(e) not an abuse of discretion; district court properly deferred to state courts and Eaton forfeited pressing for unconditional writ earlier |
| State’s noncompliance with conditional writ — waiver of resentencing | State’s failure to timely appoint experienced death‑penalty counsel (and other delays) should forfeit its right to resentencing | Delay did occur but Eaton himself told state court proceedings were premature, so he contributed to delay; no waiver | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; noncompliance did not waive State’s right, and Eaton bore some responsibility |
| Brady claim (suppression of impeachment re: jailhouse informant Dax) | Suppressed impeachment evidence was material to guilt and punishment; Dax’s testimony was critical to premeditation at guilt phase | Brady claim was procedurally defaulted as to some aspects; sentencing‑phase prejudice is moot given vacated death sentence/new sentencing remedy; COA limited scope to punishment issue | Affirmed: district court correctly treated Brady as procedurally defaulted for sentencing issues (now moot) and Eaton’s guilt‑phase Brady arguments fall outside the COA scope and were not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits §2254(d) review to state‑court record for claims adjudicated on the merits)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (highly deferential §2254(d) standard; unreasonable application standard explained)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (distinguishes unreasonable application from incorrect application of federal law)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (federal courts may delay release to give states opportunity to correct constitutional violations)
- Keeney v. Tamayo‑Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (cause‑and‑prejudice framework for state‑court fact development — discussed relative to Pinholster)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269 (addressed state court denial of resources and §2254(d) review — distinguished)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (when state court omits performance prong, federal courts review that prong de novo)
- Calene v. State, 846 P.2d 679 (Wyo. 1993) (procedure for remand when appellate counsel develops IAC issues)