Kiehle v. Ryan
2:11-cv-00352
D. Ariz.Feb 3, 2012Background
- Petitioner David Wayne Kiehle is serving a 22-year term for second-degree murder following a prior life sentence for first-degree murder (later vacated).
- Procedural posture: habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; initial petitions dismissed with leave to amend; petitioner amended again; respondents answered; no reply from petitioner.
- Arizona state court proceedings included trial in 1999-2000, post-conviction relief, and PCR appeals culminating in denial by state courts.
- Grounds raised in amended petition: ineffective assistance of counsel for declining supplemental closing argument (Ground One) and due process challenge to correcting presentence credit while on direct appeal (Ground Two).
- Magistrate Judge recommends denial of both grounds and dismissal of the petition with prejudice, and denial of a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ground Two is cognizable in federal habeas review. | Kiehle asserts state-law procedure violated due process. | Respondents contend it is a state-law issue not cognizable on federal review. | Ground Two denied; not cognizable on federal habeas review. |
| Whether Ground One shows ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. | Kiehle contends counsel’s refusal to present supplemental closing argument was deficient and prejudicial. | Respondents argue performance was reasonable and not prejudicial under Strickland; Cronic inapplicable. | Ground One denied; state court reasonably applied Strickland; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance; prejudice required)
- Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (courts give wide latitude to trial counsel decisions; closing argument could be strategic)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (waiver of closing argument analyzed under Strickland; not per se Cronic)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2004) (Cronic not applicable to waivers of closing argument; Strickland governs)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (federal habeas relief limited to constitutional rights; state-law issues not cognizable)
- Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1982) (state-law questions not raised under federal habeas review)
- Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2008) (unreasonable application of federal law review under AEDPA; no clear answer to the question)