Gary Woolbright v. Cookie Crews
791 F.3d 628
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Gary Woolbright was convicted in Kentucky state court of wanton murder and multiple drug and property offenses and sentenced to 55 years; state courts affirmed his convictions.
- Woolbright filed a Kentucky Rule 11.42 post-conviction petition; the trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, and the Kentucky appellate courts affirmed.
- In federal habeas, Woolbright raised seven ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) claims: four were never presented in state collateral proceedings; three were presented in the Rule 11.42 petition but not pursued on appeal by post-conviction counsel.
- The district court denied the habeas petition, finding all claims procedurally defaulted and summarily stating on the merits that Woolbright showed no Strickland prejudice; it denied a COA.
- The Sixth Circuit granted a COA, held that the Martinez/Trevino exception applies to Kentucky’s procedural system, affirmed denial of the three claims presented in state court, reversed as to the four unpresented claims, and remanded for reconsideration (including whether to hold an evidentiary hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kentucky’s procedures trigger the Martinez/Trevino exception allowing cause to excuse procedural default of IATC claims | Kentucky’s rules and judicial practice effectively direct IATC claims to collateral review (short new-trial window, transcript delay, judicial statements discouraging direct-appeal IATC claims), so Martinez/Trevino applies | Kentucky contends separate appellate counsel, video access, and civil-rule alternatives mitigate the barriers and provide a meaningful opportunity on direct appeal | Court held Martinez/Trevino applies in Kentucky: systemic features and judicial commentary make collateral review the practical avenue for IATC claims |
| Whether the district court’s alternative merits ruling forecloses Trevino analysis | Woolbright argued the merits ruling was perfunctory and without evidentiary development, so Trevino analysis remains necessary | Warden argued the district court ruled on merits, making review of procedural default unnecessary and COA improvidently granted | Court denied motion to vacate COA and rejected summary merits as adequate basis for affirmance; remanded for full reconsideration of unpresented IATC claims and possible evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the three IATC claims raised in state Rule 11.42 but not pursued on appeal are excused by Martinez/Trevino | Woolbright sought to excuse defaults based on ineffective post-conviction counsel | Warden argued existing Martinez/Trevino precedent does not extend to mistakes by post-conviction appellate counsel | Court affirmed denial of these three claims because Martinez/Trevino does not extend to errors in appeals from initial-review collateral proceedings |
| Whether remand and an evidentiary hearing are required for the four IATC claims never presented in state court | Woolbright sought remand for Martinez/Trevino showing and evidentiary development on Strickland prejudice | Warden urged dismissal and reliance on district court’s merits ruling | Court reversed denial as to these four claims and remanded for the district court to consider (1) whether post-conviction counsel was absent/ineffective and (2) whether the IATC claims are substantial; if so, then address prejudice and consider an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (general rule that attorney error in post-conviction review cannot establish cause for procedural default)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (narrow exception: lack of counsel at initial-review collateral proceeding can establish cause for IATC defaults)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (expanded Martinez where state procedures practically deny meaningful opportunity to raise IATC on direct appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires fairly presenting federal claims to state courts)
- Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (a claim must alert the state court to its federal nature to be fairly presented)