Thomas v. Kelley
5:14-cv-00450
E.D. Ark.Sep 26, 2016Background
- In April 2011 a jury in Ashley County, Arkansas convicted Eugene Thomas III of aggravated robbery and commercial burglary and sentenced him to 20 years. Video, witness testimony, recovered items, and a recorded post-arrest confession were introduced at trial.
- Thomas admitted in a recorded interview that it was his plan to rob the Dollar General, that he entered with a gun, but that he left without taking anything.
- On direct appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. Thomas then filed a Rule 37 petition alleging multiple ineffective-assistance claims; the Chicot County Circuit Court denied relief and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
- Thomas filed a pro se § 2254 habeas petition raising (inter alia) insufficiency of the evidence, several ineffective-assistance-of-counsel theories (intent/corpus delicti, concession of guilt/strategy, failure to challenge prosecutorial misconduct), prosecutorial-misconduct claims in sentencing, and cumulative-error.
- The Magistrate Judge reviewed the state-court record and applied AEDPA deference and Strickland standards, concluding the evidence was constitutionally sufficient and the ineffective-assistance and misconduct claims lacked merit. Recommendation: deny the § 2254 petition and deny a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support aggravated robbery and commercial burglary | Thomas: evidence was insufficient because he left without taking anything and lacked intent to commit theft | State: jury could infer intent from entry armed with a gun, surveillance, witnesses, and Thomas’s confession | Held: Evidence sufficient under Jackson; confession + corroborating evidence show intent and occurrence; claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to challenge intent and corpus delicti rules | Thomas: counsel failed to argue the State didn’t prove requisite intent and confession was uncorroborated | State: counsel’s omissions would have failed; Arkansas law requires only proof the offense occurred, not independent linkage to every detail | Held: No Strickland prejudice or deficiency; arguments would have failed as a matter of law; claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance — counsel conceded guilt / lacked strategy | Thomas: counsel’s opening/strategy effectively conceded guilt and amounted to constructive denial of counsel | State: counsel reasonably pursued lesser-offense strategy given overwhelming evidence; defendant was informed and did not insist on testifying | Held: Court finds strategy reasonable; Strickland not satisfied; claim denied |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in sentencing rebuttal and related ineffective assistance; cumulative error | Thomas: prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify and referenced a pending second robbery; counsel failed to obtain relief; cumulative effect violated due process | State: comments were invited or indirect, cured by admonition, and related to state-law evidentiary matters; cumulative-error doctrine does not expand Strickland | Held: No federal constitutional violation shown; remarks not so prejudicial as to render trial fundamentally unfair; related ineffective-assistance and cumulative-error claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard) (conviction must be supported under Jackson standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard) (deficiency and prejudice test)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S. Ct. 2060 (Jackson review deference to jury conclusions) (high bar for sufficiency claims on habeas)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (prosecutor comment on defendant’s silence) (prohibition on direct comments about failure to testify)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (state-law errors not cognizable on federal habeas)
- Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (habeas review limited to federal constitutional claims)
- Holder v. United States, 721 F.3d 979 (8th Cir.) (reasonable tactical concessions do not establish ineffective assistance)
- Lingar v. Bowersox, 176 F.3d 453 (8th Cir.) (tactical concession to lesser charge can be reasonable)