Gary Corbray v. Maggie Miller-Stout
469 F. App'x 558
9th Cir.2012Background
- Corbray appeals district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging a jury conviction for child molestation.
- He asserts federal ineffective assistance of trial counsel and jury bias claims; district court deemed them procedurally barred.
- Washington's inadequate briefing rule requires a petition to substantiate factual allegations with record citations or admissible evidence outside the record.
- The Washington Supreme Court relied on this independent and adequate state procedural ground to default Corbray's ineffective assistance claim.
- Relitigation bar does not apply to federal habeas review for the jury-bias claim, but the claim lacks merit on the merits.
- The Court affirms the district court's decision to deny relief, upholding the state court's factual findings and applying federal law standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corbray's ineffective assistance claim is procedurally barred | Corbray argues state bar blocks federal review | Washington's adequate briefing rule forecloses the claim on procedural default | Procedural default bars relief for ineffective assistance |
| Whether Corbray's jury-bias claim is reviewable in federal habeas | Claim should be reviewable despite relitigation bar | Relitigation bar does not foreclose federal review; merits to be considered | Jury-bias claim is reviewable but fails on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rice, 828 P.2d 1086 (Wash. 1992) (state briefing rule requires record or admissible evidence)
- Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003) (independent and adequate state ground shifts remaining issues to petitioner)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (prejudice standard for juror prejudice post-trial hearing)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (prejudice requires a hearing when jury exposed to extrinsic factors)
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892) (new trial warranted when jury exposed to extrinsic facts and public opinion)
- Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2002) (relitigation and federal review principles in habeas)
- Wellons v. Hall, 130 S. Ct. 727 (U.S. 2010) (relitigation barriers do not bar federal habeas review)
- Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769 (U.S. 2009) (relitigation limits on state review, not on federal habeas)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (nil effect of state relitigation on federal review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA deference standard for claims adjudicated on the merits)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (actual prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice necessary to excuse procedural defaults)