Murphy v. King
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17995
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Murphy was convicted in Minnesota on 35 counts of making terroristic threats, conspiracy, criminal damage, and burglary in a series of acts from 1978 to 1993.
- He pleaded guilty to 10 terroristic threats and one conspiracy count under a plea that included an executed 96-month sentence followed by 450 months of supervised probation, with geographic and monitoring conditions.
- The sentencing structure allowed any probation violations to trigger execution of the entire 450-month sentence; Murphy acknowledged this understanding.
- After release, Murphy violated probation multiple times (GPS tampering, leaving the geographic zone, arrests, failure to pay restitution) leading to successive revocations and executions of portions of his stayed time.
- In 2006, the Minnesota court revoked remaining probation and sentenced Murphy to 330 months in prison; on direct and collateral review, the Eighth Amendment issue was not raised.
- Murphy petitioned for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability on the Eighth Amendment issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy procedurally defaulted his Eighth Amendment claim | Murphy contends the claim is not properly defaulted. | The state court rejection and Knaffla rule bar review for not raising the issue previously. | Claim procedurally defaulted; no excusable cause shown. |
| Whether cause and prejudice excuse the default | Murphy argues ineffective postconviction counsel or other cause excuses default. | No valid cause shown; prejudice need not be addressed. | No cause shown to excuse the default. |
| Whether the fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice exception applies | Murphy suggests new evidence or innocence</br>to overcome default. | No new evidence; not a novel issue; no miscarriage. | Exception not satisfied; not applicable. |
| Whether the record supports the Eighth Amendment challenge on the merits | Murphy argues proportionality concerns render the 330-month execution excessive. | Eighth Amendment proportionality is narrow and rarely violated; the sentence was the deal made. | Threshold issue defaulted; merits not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (exhaustion requirement for habeas claims)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (exhaustion and fair presentation concept)
- McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1997) (fair presentation standard for federal claims)
- Myers v. Iowa, 53 F.3d 199 (8th Cir. 1995) (Myre; fair presentation quanta)
- Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (state-postconviction claims barred if not raised on direct appeal)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (harsh procedural-default doctrine and cause)
- Barrett v. Acevedo, 169 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 1999) (defaulted claims and exhaustion)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (ineffective assistance not a cause for default)
- Oglesby v. Bowersox, 592 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (ineffective postconviction counsel not cause)
- Washington v. State, 675 N.W.2d 628 (Minn. 2004) (exceptions to Knaffla rule)
- Cooper v. State, 745 N.W.2d 188 (Minn. 2008) (Knaffla exhaustion principle in Minnesota)
- Murphy v. State, No. A06-1471, 2007 WL 4390348 (Minn.Ct.App. Dec. 18, 2007) (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (transcript shows parties understood probation could be revoked)