984 F.3d 641
8th Cir.2021Background
- In 2011 Harris pleaded guilty in federal court and was sentenced to 300 months (later reduced to 183 months). The federal judgment was silent about running concurrently with any future state sentence.
- In July 2012 Harris entered an Alford plea in Missouri to first-degree assault; the state court sentenced him to 15 years “to run concurrent with a federal sentence.”
- Because Harris remained in state custody and the BOP had not commenced his federal sentence, the state court’s concurrency order had no effect and Harris effectively serves consecutive time.
- Harris filed a Missouri Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion; Plea Counsel testified but Harris did not raise an explicit claim that Plea Counsel misadvised him about concurrency. The PCR court denied relief.
- On appeal from the PCR denial, the Missouri Court of Appeals refused to consider the new ineffective-assistance claim raised for the first time on appeal.
- Harris filed a §2254 habeas petition asserting Plea Counsel misadvised him that the federal sentence would “swallow” the state term; the district court denied relief. The Eighth Circuit granted a COA limited to whether Plea Counsel was ineffective for advising concurrency and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to consider procedural default and the Martinez exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris adequately pleaded the claim in his §2254 petition | Harris alleged Plea Counsel told him federal sentence would swallow state term; attachment supplies facts | State: habeas form insufficient; claim not properly pleaded | Adequately pleaded; attachment + form give fair notice, so claim is presented |
| Whether the ineffective-assistance claim is procedurally defaulted | Harris: default excused under Martinez because PCR counsel failed to raise the claim | State: claim defaulted—raised first on appeal—so barred | Default was raised below; but Eighth Circuit remanded to let district court assess Martinez exception (did not decide excusal) |
| Whether Martinez exception applies (cause and prejudice) | Harris: (1) underlying trial- counsel claim is substantial; (2) PCR counsel was ineffective during initial-review collateral proceeding | State: PCR counsel’s performance does not excuse default; claim lacks merit | Court ordered an evidentiary hearing on Martinez factors—remanded for district court to determine if exception applies |
| Remedy / next step | Harris seeks merits review if default excused; potential habeas relief | State seeks dismissal if default stands | Court vacated dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing; if default excused, district court should reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (creates narrow exception allowing cause based on ineffective PCR counsel for initial-review collateral proceedings)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural-default rule; ordinarily ineffective assistance during collateral review is not cause)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard that a defaulted claim must be debatable among jurists of reason to be "substantial")
- Elwell v. Fisher, 716 F.3d 477 (8th Cir. 2013) (state court intent about concurrency not binding on BOP; federal sentence commencement rules)
- Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012) (federal courts’ discretion on whether federal sentence runs concurrent or consecutive where multiple sentences imposed)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (remands where failure to consider PCR counsel ineffectiveness may deprive defendant of review)