879 F.3d 307
8th Cir.2018Background
- In 2009 Franklin pled guilty in state and federal court after intentionally colliding with a police car; he received concurrent 216-month sentences and is incarcerated in federal custody.
- Franklin filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal after Franklin explicitly instructed them to do so.
- The district court stayed the habeas petition to allow exhaustion in Missouri courts; Franklin filed a Rule 29.07(d) motion in state circuit court, which was denied on the merits on November 8, 2013.
- Franklin waited and then filed a motion for late notice of appeal in January 2015; the Missouri Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the appeal as untimely under Missouri Rule 30.03, and his transfer application to the Missouri Supreme Court was denied.
- The district court concluded Franklin’s claim was procedurally defaulted but excused that default under Martinez v. Ryan because Franklin was unrepresented during the initial collateral proceeding; it granted conditional habeas relief to allow Franklin to refile an appeal.
- The state appealed; the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding Martinez does not excuse defaults occurring in appeals from initial-review collateral proceedings and Coleman governs because the default resulted from failure to timely appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez v. Ryan excuses Franklin’s procedural default for failing to timely appeal the denial of his Rule 29.07 motion | Franklin: Martinez excuses default because he was pro se (no counsel) during the state postconviction process, so cause exists | State: Martinez does not apply to defaults occurring on appeal from the initial-review collateral proceeding; Coleman governs | Held: Martinez does not apply; procedural default stands and Coleman’s cause-and-prejudice rule applies |
| Whether Franklin’s Rule 29.07 claim was fairly presented to state courts | Franklin: He timely presented ineffective-assistance claim in his Rule 29.07 motion | State: The claim was presented but later dismissed as untimely on appeal under state procedural rules | Held: The claim was presented but procedurally defaulted by failure to comply with Rule 30.03 |
| Whether attorney error in failing to file a timely appeal can constitute "cause" | Franklin: Counsel’s failure to file appeal (and his pro se status on appeal) is cause per Martinez reasoning | State: Attorney error in failing to appeal is not cause under Coleman because counsel is the petitioner’s agent | Held: Attorney error in failing to appeal does not constitute cause under Coleman; Franklin bears risk of attorney error |
| Whether district court could grant habeas relief under AEDPA/Strickland given state-court denial on the merits | Franklin: Circuit court’s denial must be reviewed under AEDPA’s double deference; Flores‑Ortega supports relief where counsel disregarded specific instructions to appeal | State: Even assuming Flores‑Ortega, procedural default bars relief absent cause and prejudice | Held: Court did not reach merits because procedural default was not excused; Martinez inapplicable, so habeas relief reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited exception excusing procedural default when no counsel or ineffective counsel in initial-review collateral proceeding)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (establishes cause-and-prejudice standard and holds attorney negligence in postconviction proceedings generally does not constitute cause)
- Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (attorney acts professionally unreasonable by disregarding a defendant’s specific instruction to file a notice of appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (presumption that state court adjudicated a claim on the merits for AEDPA review absent contrary indication)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) (attorney negligence generally does not qualify as cause for procedural default)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (cause requires external impediment not fairly attributable to the petitioner)
- Arnold v. Dormire, 675 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 2012) (Martinez does not support excuse for failure to preserve claims on collateral appeal)
- Norris v. Brooks, 794 F.3d 401 (3d Cir. 2015) (Martinez does not justify relief when claim was presented in initial collateral review but waived on collateral appeal)