Michael Miller v. Dushan Zatecky
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7571
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael Miller convicted in Indiana of three counts of child molestation for abuse starting at age nine and continuing six years; sentenced to three consecutive 40-year terms (120 years).
- Direct appeal affirmed in 2004; appellate counsel did not challenge the sentence length on direct appeal despite Miller’s request.
- Miller sought state post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; Indiana court of appeals found counsel erred in omitting the sentencing claim but held Miller failed to show prejudice because, under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), his sentence was not "inappropriate."
- Miller filed a § 2254 habeas petition; district court denied relief; the Seventh Circuit affirmed (lead opinion) and issued a dissent (Adelman, J.).
- Majority held federal habeas review under AEDPA cannot overturn a state-court determination of state law (that a 120-year sentence was not inappropriate) and that Miller failed to show an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law.
- Dissent argued appellate counsel was deficient and that, with hindsight permitted for prejudice, there was a reasonable probability the sentence would have been revised given multiple Indiana cases shortening similar sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sentence on direct appeal | Miller: counsel omitted a non-frivolous, obvious sentencing challenge; performance deficient | Warden: omission futile because Indiana law would not have revised the sentence | Majority: counsel should have raised it but Miller fails AEDPA burden; state court reasonably found no prejudice under state-law outcome; affirmed |
| Whether the state court’s prejudice ruling was an unreasonable application of federal law under § 2254(d)(1) | Miller: later Indiana cases (post-2004) show a reasonable probability of success; hindsight permissible for prejudice | Warden: state court applied correct law and need not apply later state precedent retroactively | Majority: no Supreme Court decision clearly requires retroactivity of state-law precedent; AEDPA bars federal relitigation of state-law outcome; affirmed |
| Role of hindsight in assessing Strickland prejudice on collateral review | Miller: Lockhart and later authority allow hindsight when assessing prejudice; courts may consider developments at time of collateral review | Warden: Lockhart does not mandate hindsight that would give petitioner a windfall; state court acted properly | Majority: Lockhart does not require using hindsight to override state-court merits; § 2254(d) restricts relief; affirmed |
| Whether federal courts may compare the strength of omitted state-law arguments to those raised (per Shaw) in AEDPA context | Miller: Shaw supports assessing relative strength and using later state decisions to assess prejudice | Warden: Shaw does not permit federal courts to overturn a state-court conclusion that state law provided no relief | Majority: Shaw does not authorize § 2254 relief where state court directly resolved the state-law issue on the merits; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (limits on using later developments to manufacture prejudice; warns against unfair hindsight)
- Shaw v. Wilson, 721 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2013) (appellate counsel ineffective where omitted state-law claim was clearly stronger; comparative-strength inquiry)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) (federal courts cannot overrule state courts on state-law questions in habeas)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA constraints on federal habeas review of state-court decisions)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (states must apply certain substantive federal decisions retroactively when required)
- Maryland v. Kulbicki, 136 S. Ct. 2 (2015) (Lockhart cited for caution against hindsight in assessing counsel performance)