Piper v. Young, 936 N.W.2d 793

Background:

In 2000 Briley Piper participated in the kidnapping, torture, and murder of Chester Poage; he later pled guilty (to felony murder and related counts) and waived jury sentencing.
The plea-taking judge sentenced Piper to death; this was affirmed in State v. Piper (Piper I).
On habeas review (Piper II) the court found the plea judge had misadvised about the unanimity rule for jury sentencing and remanded for jury resentencing; a jury again imposed death and this was affirmed (Piper III).
Piper filed a second habeas petition arguing (1) his 2001 guilty pleas were not voluntary/intelligent because he thought waiving jury was necessary to obtain court sentencing, (2) the resentencing court abused discretion by excluding evidence of alleged inconsistent prosecutorial arguments, and (3) various ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims tied to both the plea and the resentencing.
The circuit court denied relief; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding many claims procedurally precluded and, on the merits, that pleas were voluntary/intelligent and the IAC claims failed under Strickland.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Were Piper's 2001 guilty pleas involuntary/unintelligent?	Piper: He waived jury because he believed court sentencing required waiving jury; plea therefore not voluntary/intelligent.	State: Claim is procedurally defaulted/res judicata; even on merits plea was voluntary/intelligent and counsel's pre-Piper I advice was reasonable.	Held: Precluded by res judicata; on merits plea was voluntary/intelligent—advice was reasonable given unsettled law and no prejudice.
2. Did resentencing court abuse discretion by denying evidence of alleged inconsistent prosecutorial arguments?	Piper: Prosecution made inconsistent statements about leadership roles; this should be admissible/mitigating.	State: Claim defaulted on direct appeal; arguments were not truly inconsistent and were not evidence preventing Piper's mitigation.	Held: Precluded by res judicata; evidentiary predicate weak and no basis for habeas relief.
3. Were original trial counsels ineffective in advising about jury/sentencing procedure?	Piper: Counsel gave incorrect legal advice (guilt and sentencing forums must be same), causing involuntary plea.	State: Counsel's advice was reasonable under then-existing law; Piper cannot show gross error or prejudice (would not have beaten overwhelming evidence).	Held: IAC fails—performance reasonable given unsettled law and no showing Piper would have insisted on trial or obtained different result.
4. Were resentencing counsels ineffective (voir dire, expert witnesses, witness investigation, failure to appeal)?	Piper: Multiple trial and appellate errors (poor voir dire, inadequate investigation, calling mitigation experts who acknowledged aggravators, failing to appeal mistrial).	State: Many claims were defaulted; strategic choices were reasonable; no prejudice shown under Strickland.	Held: IAC claims denied—no deficient performance or no prejudice; several claims procedurally barred.

Key Cases Cited

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (judge may not find death-penalty aggravating facts in lieu of a jury).
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (standard for voluntariness/intelligence of guilty pleas).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel).
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for plea-based IAC claims).
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for excusing prospective juror in capital cases).
Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (1988) (loss of peremptory challenge is not constitutional error if seated jury is impartial).
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (finality concerns in collateral review).
United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (1979) (finality and limits on post-plea collateral attack).
State v. Piper (Piper I), 709 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 2006) (affirmed court sentencing after plea; analyzed SD sentencing statutes).
Piper v. Weber (Piper II), 771 N.W.2d 352 (S.D. 2009) (found unanimity advisement error; remanded for jury resentencing).
State v. Piper (Piper III), 842 N.W.2d 338 (S.D. 2014) (affirmed jury-imposed death sentence).
Ramos v. Weber, 616 N.W.2d 88 (S.D. 2000) (res judicata bars habeas claims that could have been raised on direct appeal).