Payne v. Stansberry
800 F. Supp. 2d 251
D.D.C.2011Background
- Payne is DC prisoner seeking federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from a DC Superior Court conviction.
- Direct appeal affirmed by DC Court of Appeals; issues included sufficiency of evidence and aiding-and-abetting instruction.
- Post-conviction and § 23-110 proceedings were pursued in DC Superior Court between 1998 and 2010 with multiple denials.
- August 2008 recall-mandate attempt in DC Court of Appeals denied as untimely; reconsideration denied in 2009.
- April 2010 § 2254 petition filed in federal court alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel due to alleged conflict of interest of trial/appeal counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under §2244(d). | Payne argues timely due to (a) final judgment date and (b) equitable tolling after Williams. | Stansberry argues time-bar; filing due by Sept. 20, 2001. | Not time-barred; equitable tolling applied. |
| Whether trial-error claims are barred by DC's §23-110 local remedy. | Payne contends local remedy was inadequate to raise trial-errors. | Local remedy barred unless inadequate or ineffective. | Trial-error claims barred; not reviewable in federal court. |
| Whether appellate IAAC claim survives given 28 U.S.C. §2254(i) and collateral-proceeding limits. | Conte’s conflict of interest deprived Payne of effective appellate assistance. | IAAC claims tied to collateral proceedings are not cognizable; inadequate performance in collateral review barred. | IAAC claim fails; collateral-counseline ineffective-assistance claims barred; no prejudice shown for trial-issue claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995 (D.C.Cir.2009) (recognition of §23-110(g) inadequacy exception opens federal review for IAAC)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of appellate counsel)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Foreman v. U.S., 633 A.2d 792 (D.C.1993) (plain-error standard for challenged jury instructions)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994) (standard for determining reasonable doubt instructions)
- Blaine v. U.S., 18 A.3d 766 (D.C.2011) (plain-error considerations in reasonable doubt instruction)
- Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722 (D.C.Cir.1986) (local-remedy bar for federal review of DC convictions)
- Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036 (D.C.Cir.1998) (DC post-conviction remedy viability)
- Byrd v. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34 (D.C.Cir.1997) (limitations on federal review of DC collateral proceedings)
- Payne v. U.S., 697 A.2d 1229 (D.C.1997) (direct-appeal and aiding-and-abetting instructions context (DC Supreme Court))