Thomas Bastian v. Charles Ryan, 19-15385

Thomas Bastian appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition after conviction; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
At an initial police interview Bastian invoked his right to counsel; police later introduced statements from subsequent interviews.
The state court and district court concluded Bastian had "reinitiated" contact with police, so Edwards protections did not bar later statements.
At trial Bastian was fitted with a stun belt and leg shackles; he later alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge their use.
Bastian raised the shackling/ineffective-assistance claim only in a second PCR petition; Arizona courts denied it as successive and untimely under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.
The district court applied AEDPA deference; Bastian renounced a Martinez-based cause argument and sought an expanded Certificate of Appealability, which the court declined.

Issue	Bastian's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Bastian reinitiated contact after invoking right to counsel (Edwards rule)	Bastian contends he had invoked counsel and did not reinitiate; statements should be excluded.	Police/state contend Bastian reinitiated contact; trial court credited officer testimony; later Miranda warnings given and no request for counsel.	Court held state court reasonably found reinitiation; AEDPA deference applied; statements admissible.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge use of stun belt and shackles, and whether that claim is precluded by Rule 32	Bastian argues the claim falls within Rule 32’s exception for rights of "sufficient constitutional magnitude" and thus is not precluded.	State argues claim was raised only in second PCR, so successive/untimely under Rule 32 and precluded; the restraint-right is not within the exception.	Court held the claim was procedurally defaulted and precluded under Rule 32; no showing Rule 32 was applied inconsistently or inadequately.

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (invocation of counsel bars further interrogation unless defendant initiates contact)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (restraints may be used only after specific judicial findings)
Stewart v. Smith, 46 P.3d 1067 (Ariz. 2002) (describing Rule 32 preclusion and exception for rights of sufficient constitutional magnitude)
Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner bears burden to show inadequacy/inconsistent application of state procedural rule)
Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for AEDPA habeas denials)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited equitable exception for procedural default based on ineffective PCR counsel)