Stone v. Moore
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8888
6th Cir.2011Background
- Petitioner Jackie Stone pled guilty to murder with a firearm specification and felonious assault as lesser-included offenses; he received a sentence of 15 years to life for murder, plus 3 years for the firearm spec, and 7 years concurrent for felonious assault.
- Stone later challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea and sought a delayed appeal under Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(A) more than six years after sentencing.
- Both the Ohio Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court denied his motion for leave to appeal as untimely.
- Stone filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition after exhausting state remedies, asserting due process and ineffective-assistance claims related to the plea and appellate rights.
- The district court denied the habeas claims as procedurally defaulted, but granted a certificate of appealability.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Stone procedurally defaulted his habeas claims by failing to pursue a timely Rule 5(A) motion for a delayed appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim default bars federal review | Stone | Moore | Yes; procedural default bars review |
| Whether Ohio Rule 5(A) is an adequate, independent state ground post-Beard/Walker | Stone argues Rule 5(A) is not adequately applicable due to discretionary enforcement | Moore argues Rule 5(A) can support default under Beard/Walker | Yes; Rule 5(A) can constitute an adequate independent bar |
| Effect of Walker on Maupin approach | Stone claims Maupin controls despite Walker | Moore relies on Walker to allow discretionary rules as default bases | Walker supersedes Maupin; discretionary rules can foreclose review |
| Whether the petition could be saved by cause and prejudice | Stone contends cause exists for delay in filing | Moore says no adequate cause shown for six-year delay | Not addressed on merits due to default |
| Whether the voluntariness of the guilty plea was properly before the court | Stone asserts plea voluntariness challenges | Moore contends pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered | Not reached; default prevents merits review |
Key Cases Cited
- Beard v. Kindler, 130 S. Ct. 612 (U.S. 2009) (discretionary state rules can serve as adequate grounds for default)
- Walker v. Martin, 131 S. Ct. 1120 (U.S. 2011) (discretionary procedural rules may foreclose review if adequate and independent)
- Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135 (6th Cir. 1986) (state rule must be firmly established and regularly followed)
- Deitz v. Money, 391 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2004) (Rule 5(A) discretion not firmly established means not adequate)
- Munson v. Kapture, 384 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2004) (procedural default framework in Maupin lineage)
- Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 612 (U.S. 2009) (clarified adequacy inquiry for discretionary rules)
- United States v. Mader, 251 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 2001) (plea voluntariness considerations in habeas context)