Milton v. Miller
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4326
10th Cir.2014Background
- Milton, an Oklahoma prisoner, was convicted on multiple counts including trafficking with two prior felonies and sentenced to life without parole for the trafficking count.
- Milton sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not arguing trial counsel failed to inform him of a favorable pretrial plea offer.
- Two plea offers are referenced: an earlier offer (about 20–25 years) discussed before the preliminary hearing and a later 40-year offer discussed on the day of trial, with Milton allegedly not informed of the earlier offer.
- Milton was represented by multiple attorneys at different stages; the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal.
- Milton pursued state post-conviction relief; the district court denied relief, the magistrate recommended denial of the habeas petition, and this court granted a certificate of appealability to review the ineffective-assistance claim.
- This court ultimately reversed the district court, directing remand for an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts related to appellate counsel’s performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the OCCA’s Strickland analysis for appellate counsel deficient? | Milton | OCCA applied a truncated Strickland standard | Yes; OCCA misapplied Strickland, requiring merits-focused prejudice analysis. |
| Did Milton establish prejudice from appellate counsel’s failure? | Milton | Prejudice denied based on Benedict affidavit | Disputed facts prevent a finding; possible prejudice if Milton was not informed and would have accepted a plea. |
| Should the federal court conduct an evidentiary hearing under Cullen v. Pinholster and §2254(e)(2)? | Milton | Courts should rely on record evidence | Remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing; Cullen does not bar relief here. |
| Is Milton entitled to de novo review of the appellate-counsel claim due to the OCCA’s misapplication? | Milton | Standard AEDPA deference applies | Yes; because of misapplication, this court reviews de novo. |
| If an evidentiary hearing is held, would Milton’s claim merit on the merits after fact development? | Milton | No merit without evidence | To be determined on remand after factual development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (appellate-counsel ineffectiveness standard)
- Jiminez v. State, 144 P.3d 903 (2006) (requires prompt communication of plea offers; prejudice possible if not conveyed)
- McGee v. Higgins, 568 F.3d 832 (2009) (OCCA misapplied Strickland by ignoring merits; prejudice analysis tied to omitted claims)
- Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (2003) (federal standard requires addressing merits of omitted claims)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits §2254(d)(1) review to the state-court record; e-hearings permissible under §2254(e))
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (clarifies ‘contrary to’ and ‘unreasonable application’ standards)