457 F. App'x 277
4th Cir.2011Background
- Crews was convicted in 2005 of abduction with intent to defile, statutory burglary with intent to commit murder/rape/robbery while armed, attempted robbery, rape, and three firearm-use counts, receiving 601 months imprisonment.
- On direct appeal, the state appellate court denied relief, relying on Arizona v. Youngblood.
- Virginia Supreme Court denied Crews’s petitions for writ of habeas corpus.
- Crews then filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in the Western District of Virginia asserting due process violation for destroyed DNA, insufficiency of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The district court dismissed the petition, citing Youngblood as not contrary or an unreasonable application of law, and granted a certificate of appealability.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the state court did not unreasonably apply Youngblood; it also addressed the ineffective assistance claim under the doubly deferential Strickland standard and rejected prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the state court's Youngblood ruling unreasonable? | Crews argues the waiver/denial treated Youngblood as controlling law unreasonably. | State contends the ruling complied with clearly established federal law and was not unreasonable. | No; state court did not unreasonably apply Youngblood. |
| Did Crews suffer ineffective assistance of counsel prejudicing the outcome? | Crews asserts deficient performance affected trial result and claim should have been raised in state court. | State maintains no prejudice under Strickland doubly deferential standard. | No prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due-process standard for destroyed evidence)
- Conaway v. Polk, 453 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2006) (habeas review de novo with COA limitation)
- Allen v. Lee, 366 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc standard for § 2254(d)(1))
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application standard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (doubly deferential standard for reviewing counsel claims)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 129 S. Ct. 1411 (2009) (application of Strickland prejudice under deferential review)
- Buckner v. Polk, 453 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2006) (clarifies § 2254(d)(1) review framework)