Lebere v. Abbott
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21131
10th Cir.2013Background
- LeBere convicted of second-degree murder and second-degree arson in Colorado; sentenced to 48 and 12 years, respectively, consecutive.
- Key witness Archuleta recanted after LeBere began serving his sentence, prompting a new-trial request based on newly discovered evidence.
- Colorado courts denied the motion; the Brady claim based on alleged police misconduct was treated as subsumed in the new-trial ruling.
- LeBere pursued federal habeas relief arguing a Brady violation; the district court stayed proceedings to allow exhaustion in state court.
- Colorado Court of Appeals held Brady claim was “raised and resolved” in a prior proceeding under Rule 35(c)(3)(VI); federal review was barred.
- The district court and appellate courts ultimately held that the state bar foreclosed review; the issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court-like Cone analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Colorado’s successive-bar rule bar federal review of a Brady claim? | LeBere argues Cone controls; bar does not extinguish federal review. | Colorado rule prevents revisiting previously decided claims; review should be barred. | No; Cone controls; no procedural bar to federal review. |
| Was Brady claim improperly treated as previously determined due to linkage with new-trial ruling? | Brady claim was distinct from the newly discovered-evidence claim, not properly subsumed. | Brady issue was implicit in the new-trial decision and thus previously determined. | Brady claim was not previously determined; must be reviewed on the merits. |
| Does Cone apply to the Colorado Rule 35(c)(3)(VI) successive-bar issue in this context? | Cone supports federal review even where state court says claim previously determined. | Colorado rule aligns with Cone's rationale, just with different wording; still bars review. | Cone applies; state bar does not preclude federal habeas review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (state court's refusal to adjudicate on the basis of previous determination does not preclude federal review)
- Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963) (Sanders rule undergirds successive-claim bars and federal review limitations)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (nullifies notion that remand-type or procedural twists preclude review of merits)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (exhaustion and procedural default principles in habeas corpus)
- Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982) (exhaustion fairness and notice standards for federal claims)