Fuller v. Pacheco
531 F. App'x 864
10th Cir.2013Background
- Fuller was convicted in Wyoming state court of one count of felony destruction of property after driving his pickup into a closed garage, damaging his wife’s car inside the garage.
- He received a sentence of five to eight years’ imprisonment and challenged the conviction on direct appeal; the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected his argument about ambiguous statute construction.
- Fuller filed a pro se post-conviction relief petition in state court, which the court dismissed for non-compliance with procedural rules; the Wyoming Supreme Court summarily denied review.
- He then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court dismissed, finding claims procedurally defaulted or unreviewable as state-law questions.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit granted COA on four claims and later expanded COA to include issue I(4), ultimately affirming dismissal on other grounds.
- The court applied state post-conviction procedural bars under Wyoming statutes § 7-14-101 and § 7-14-103, and analyzed whether Fuller could overcome default with cause, prejudice, or actual innocence gateway logic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fuller’s claims are procedurally barred | Fuller argues ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct merit habeas review | Wyoming procedural bars foreclose review of defaulted state-law and direct-appeal claims | Procedural bars apply; COA denied on issues beyond I(4) |
| Whether issues I(1) and I(2) independently support relief | Appellate counsel's deficient performance on direct appeal violated rights | Issues I(1) and I(2) are not cognizable in post-conviction proceedings as standalone relief for appellate counsel | I(1) and I(2) fail as independent bases for relief |
| Whether issue I(4) (ineffective assistance for not raising prosecutorial misconduct) warrants COA | Appellate counsel failed to argue trial-level prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutorial misconduct claims were procedurally barred or duplicative of trial issues | COA expanded to include I(4); gateway issue viable for review |
| Whether issue I(3) (ineffective assistance for failing to argue actual innocence) merits COA | Actual innocence claim should be reviewed | Actual innocence is not itself a constitutional claim and was decided on direct appeal | COA denied for I(3); no decأيisive constitutional claim shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (S. Ct. 2013) (ineffective assistance on direct appeal can excuse procedural default)
- Lopez v. Trani, 628 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2010) (gateway for COA in habeas petitions; reasonable jurist standard)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (actual innocence gateway to review of procedurally barred claims)
- Fairchild v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2009) (state procedural bars apply unless cause and prejudice or miscarriage shown)
- Harlow v. Wyoming, 105 P.3d 1049 (Wyoming 2005) (defines scope of post-conviction relief under Wyoming statute)
- Sharpe v. Bell, 593 F.3d 372 (4th Cir. 2010) (federal habeas review of state court procedural default)
- Crawley v. Dinwiddie, 584 F.3d 916 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for habeas findings of fact and law)
- Harman v. Pollock, 586 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2009) (courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record)