Pace v. Arrington
3:20-cv-00287-DPJ-LGI
| S.D. Miss. | Jul 31, 2023Background
- In April 2010 Jessica Goodwin testified she was kidnapped at gunpoint from her home with her four-month-old daughter, forced into a car, extorted for money, and sexually assaulted; Pace was identified at the scene and arrested the next day.
- A jury acquitted Pace of rape but convicted him of extortion, kidnapping, and robbery; the state supreme court later vacated the robbery conviction because robbery was not charged in the indictment.
- At trial Pace testified he was present but did not commit the sexual acts; forensic DNA linked semen to Darrin Wilson but not to Pace.
- Pace appealed and pursued state post-conviction relief; Mississippi courts rejected his claims, and his post-conviction challenge to the kidnapping indictment was denied on the merits.
- In this § 2254 petition Pace raises (1) sufficiency of the indictment as to kidnapping and related jurisdictional/due-process/double jeopardy claims and (2) ineffective-assistance claims (primarily related to appellate/post-conviction counsel).
- The magistrate judge recommends dismissal with prejudice: most claims are procedurally defaulted for federal review, and the exhausted kidnapping-indictment claim fails under AEDPA deference to the state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default / exhaustion | Pace contends his claims should be heard federally | Respondent: most claims were not exhausted in state court and are now procedurally barred as successive | Court: Claims are procedurally defaulted; Pace failed to show cause and prejudice or actual innocence, so federal review is barred |
| Sufficiency of indictment for kidnapping | Indictment omitted language (e.g., "against her will", child's age) and mis-cited statute; thus defective and deprived court of jurisdiction | State: Indictment tracked statutory elements and any citation error or omissions did not deprive notice or jurisdiction | Court: State supreme court reasonably rejected the claim; indictment not so defective as to deprive jurisdiction; habeas relief denied under AEDPA |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (appellate/PCR) | Appellate counsel failed to forward State's PCR response, failed to investigate the indictment, and failed to correspond | Respondent: Claims unexhausted/procedurally defaulted; appellate counsel not counsel of record in PCR and thus not responsible for PCR filings | Court: Claims are procedurally defaulted; Pace did not exhaust or show cause/prejudice; denied |
| AEDPA deference to state-court adjudication | Pace asserts state decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law | Respondent: AEDPA requires deference; state court reasonably applied law and facts | Court: Applied AEDPA framework and found no basis to grant § 2254 relief; dismissal recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default and cause/prejudice framework)
- Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022) (procedural default corollary to exhaustion; limitations on federal review of defaulted claims)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (actual-innocence exception to procedural default)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (standard for "fundamental miscarriage of justice"—new, reliable evidence of innocence)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standards: "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" prongs)
- Debrow v. United States, 346 U.S. 374 (1953) (purpose of indictment is to inform defendant of the nature and cause of accusation)
- Evans v. Cain, 577 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2009) (indictment sufficiency is not federal habeas issue unless so defective that state court lacked jurisdiction)