Sullivan v. Wilson, 673 F. App'x 855

Background

Monty Sullivan was convicted in Wyoming of two counts of sexual abuse of a minor; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal (issue: prosecutorial misconduct).
Sullivan filed state post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the state trial court found the claims procedurally barred for not having been raised on direct appeal and concluded the ineffective-assistance claims lacked merit.
The Wyoming Supreme Court denied certiorari. Sullivan then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court dismissed it as procedurally defaulted and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
Sullivan sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit to appeal the district court’s dismissal.
The Tenth Circuit examined whether the state procedural bar was independent and adequate and, finding the state court’s procedural ruling relied on an antecedent federal-law merits determination, proceeded to review the ineffective-assistance claims on the merits under AEDPA standards.
The court held the state-court adjudication was reasonable: trial counsel’s strategic choices (no expert on a non-admitted video, cross-examination of the victim, reliance on available medical records, and objections that were overruled) did not satisfy Strickland; cumulative-error claim also failed. COA denied and appeal dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sullivan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Wyoming procedural bar is an independent and adequate state ground preventing federal review	State trial court’s procedural dismissal should bar federal review	State argued Sullivan’s claims were barred for not raising them on direct appeal	Tenth Circuit: procedural ruling depended on an antecedent federal merits ruling, so it was not independent; court reached merits
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining an expert to review a video interview	Failure to obtain expert undermined ability to challenge victim’s statements	Video was not shown to jury; counsel cross-examined the victim and exposed weaknesses	Held: counsel’s decision reasonable; no Strickland prejudice
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to contact the victim’s doctor or produce medical evidence	Doctor would have testified victim showed no signs of abuse; counsel’s failure prejudiced defense	No supporting statements from doctor; medical record offered was from long after incidents	Held: petitioner failed to show state court unreasonably rejected this claim
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress confession as involuntary	Confession was coerced or involuntary	Defendant was Mirandized, two-hour interview, no physical coercion; totality did not show involuntariness	Held: not reasonably probable suppression would have succeeded; no Strickland relief
Whether counsel failed by not objecting to prejudicial testimony about dismissed charge	Testimony about related conduct was prejudicial and should have been excluded	Counsel objected at trial and was overruled; questioned testimony admissible for non-character purpose	Held: counsel acted, and evidence was admissible for its limited purpose; no ineffective assistance
Whether cumulative errors warrant relief	Combined errors undermined trial fairness	Individual claims lacked merit; cumulatively insufficient	Held: no cumulative prejudice sufficient for relief

Key Cases Cited

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for COA where claims dismissed on procedural grounds)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (state procedural rule is not independent if it rests on antecedent federal-law ruling)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (presumption that state court adjudicated claims on the merits when it issues a summary ruling)
Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (when state court denies relief on federal merit, AEDPA deference applies)
Neill v. Gibson, 278 F.3d 1044 (assessment of appellate counsel’s effectiveness looks to merits of omitted issues)
Thacker v. Workman, 678 F.3d 820 (federal courts ordinarily will not review claims defaulted on independent and adequate state grounds)
Maes v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 979 (independence of state procedural rulings)
United States v. Lopez, 437 F.3d 1059 (factors for voluntariness of statements)
Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (state-court alternative holdings and federal review)
Bonney v. Wilson, 817 F.3d 703 (review of last reasoned state-court decision)
Montez v. Hickenlooper, 640 F.3d 1126 (prison mailbox rule for timely filing)