Josiah Deyton v. Alvin Keller, Jr., 682 F.3d 340

Deyton, Koniak, and Andrew Deyton plotted an armed robbery targeting Ridgeview Presbyterian Church during a Sunday service in Mitchell County, NC, on April 13, 2008.
The trio wore masks, used firearms, duct tape, and seized the church collection and other valuables totaling about $2,670; threats to kill were made and a gun discharged.
On July 22, 2008, two defendants pled guilty to eleven counts of armed robbery and one count of conspiracy; Koniak pled guilty a month later; all three faced a consolidated sentencing hearing before Judge James L. Baker, Jr.
Judge Baker sentenced the trio to ten consecutive presumptive-range sentences of 64–86 months on armed robbery counts and a suspended 25–39 month term on the conspiracy count, after considering victim impact and community testimony.
Petitioners later filed Motions for Appropriate Relief in state court (Aug 21, 2009); MAR court denied (May 11, 2010); state certiorari petitions were denied; federal habeas petition filed and denied; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the sentencing judge’s references to religion violate due process?	Deyton argues Bakker controls; religious references tainted the sentencing.	Deyton contends crime had a religious component; community condemnation justified remarks.	No due process violation; not an unreasonable application under AEDPA.
Was the state court’s AEDPA deference standard properly applied?	Deyton maintains the burden shifts with Bakker as controlling precedent.	Deyton’s claim fails under strict AEDPA deference to state court rulings.	Yes; the district court’s ruling maintained proper AEDPA deference.
Are community impact and disruption of worship permissible sentencing considerations?	Deyton contends such remarks reflect improper prejudice.	Basing punishment on crime’s impact on religious practice is appropriate.	Yes; the judge could consider the unique harms to the religious community.

Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (due process requirements for sentencing process)
Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983) (cannot rely on religion when determining term; general prohibition on impermissible factors)
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (consideration of harm to victims and community at sentencing)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (context for necessity of explanation in sentencing to aid public trust)
Bakker, 925 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1991) (reversed where judge’s personal religiosity influenced punishment)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 129 S. Ct. 1411 (2009) (limits on applying undefined federal rules to state sentencing)