Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9662
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sexton, an Oregon state prisoner, challenged a district court denial of his § 2254 petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel rendered his guilty plea involuntary.
- Plea negotiations reduced aggravated murder charges to two counts of intentional murder; sentencing was two consecutive life terms with 25-year minimums under Ballot Measure 11.
- State post-conviction relief proceedings denied relief, including findings that Sexton’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that new claims were procedurally defaulted.
- Sexton raised two new ineffective-assistance claims in his federal petition (polygraph coercion and disclosure of a recantation letter) not adjudicated in state court.
- Martinez v. Ryan introduced a narrow exception to Coleman’s default rule, allowing review of a substantial underlying trial-counsel claim if PCR counsel was ineffective; the court considered this for remand.
- The panel denied a limited remand and upheld denial of the habeas petition, holding the trial counsel’s advice was constitutionally adequate and the new claims did not merit relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s advice rendered the guilty plea involuntary | Sexton argues counsel failed to warn about family opposition to concurrent sentences | Cozner contends advice was adequate and plea was knowing | No; plea was knowing and voluntary under Strickland and AEDPA |
| Whether Martinez requires remand to consider new claims | Sexton seeks remand to review new IAC claims | State argues Martinez narrowly excludes remand here | Remand denied; Martinez not satisfied due to lack of cause/prejudice showing |
| Whether PCR counsel’s failure to raise new IAC claims excuses default | Sexton claims PCR counsel was ineffective for not raising trial-counsel IAC | Kuhns’s performance not ineffective; trial-counsel claims meritless | No; no substantial underlying IAC claim and PCR counsel not ineffective |
| Whether the underlying IAC claims are substantial | New claims have merit and should be reviewed | Claims lacking merit; not cause to overcome default | Not substantial; not excused by Martinez |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice prong in guilty-plea claims)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. 2012) (narrow exception to Coleman for ineffective assistance in initial-review collateral proceedings)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (procedural-default framework; cause and prejudice standard)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (attorney conduct in collateral proceedings can be non-ineffective)