Rodney v. Baker
3:13-cv-00323
D. Nev.Feb 16, 2017Background
- In 2010 Rodney was tried in Nevada state court and convicted by a jury of burglary with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon, and battery with a deadly weapon; sentences ranged up to 20 years.
- Rodney’s direct appeal and initial state habeas petition were denied; a second state post-conviction petition was dismissed on procedural grounds and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
- Rodney filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court dismissed multiple grounds as procedurally defaulted or unexhausted, leaving Ground 1 for merits review.
- Ground 1 challenged sufficiency of the evidence for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and deadly-weapon enhancements, and alleged ineffective assistance for failure to object to alleged perjured testimony.
- The state courts found the trial evidence (victim and witness testimony, photographs, paramedic evidence) sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to support convictions and deadly-weapon findings; they also found trial counsel did object and adequately cross-examined the victim.
- Applying AEDPA deference, the federal district court denied the habeas petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder | Rodney: victim's testimony was unreliable and conflicted with witness Womack; evidence insufficient to prove intent or use of a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt | State: Victim and witness testimony, photos, and paramedic evidence, viewed in prosecution's favor, permit reasonable inference of attempted murder, conspiracy, and deadly-weapon use | Denied — evidence sufficient under Jackson when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution; state-court decision not unreasonable under AEDPA |
| Deadly-weapon sentence enhancements | Rodney: No proof a deadly weapon was used or its character as a deadly weapon | State: Bat and knife, as used, qualify as deadly weapons under Nevada law | Denied — enhancements supported by evidence and Nevada definitions of deadly weapon |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to alleged perjured testimony | Rodney: Trial counsel failed to object to or strike perjured victim testimony, prejudicing defense | State: Trial counsel did object and moved to strike; counsel cross-examined victim thoroughly; inconsistencies went to credibility, not admissibility | Denied — record shows counsel objected and cross-examined; performance not deficient under Strickland; no prejudice shown |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Rodney: (implicit) claims are debatable and merit appellate review | State: District court found claims lacked debatable merit | Denied — court concluded reasonable jurists would not find its procedural or substantive rulings debatable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA contrary/unreasonable application standard)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (deference to state-court factual findings in habeas review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; "fairminded jurists" standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (AEDPA is a difficult-to-meet, highly deferential standard)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)