756 F.3d 1000
7th Cir.2014Background
- Jones was convicted of felony murder in an Indiana bench trial; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- He filed state postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not moving to suppress clothing seized after his arrest.
- Jones argued the clothing and related evidence were obtained in violation of Pirtle v. State (Ind. 1975), which requires advising a detainee of the right to counsel before consenting to a search.
- State postconviction relief was denied; Indiana appellate courts denied relief; Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer.
- Jones pursued federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; district court denied relief; Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying Strickland with AEDPA deference.
- Key facts include Jones’s presence at Alexander’s apartment, receipt of a laboratory report linking shoes to the crime scene years later, and the initial voluntary surrender of his shoes and clothing to Detective Benner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to challenge evidence under Pirtle? | Jones argues counsel should have moved to suppress shoes/clothing under Pirtle. | Jones’s counsel reasonably declined given limited intrusion and lack of prejudice; Pirtle not controlling here. | No; counsel's failure was not outside the wide range of competent assistance. |
| Was there prejudice under Strickland given the alleged error? | Admission of shoes/clothes and related statements tainted by illegal seizure. | Prejudice not shown; statements were not proven to be fruits of the seizure. | Not prejudiced; state court’s prejudice ruling was reasonable under AEDPA. |
| Does Pirtle apply to custodial, minimally intrusive seizure of clothing? | Pirtle requires counsel advisement before any custodial search; applies here. | Pirtle applies only to weightier intrusions; this was a limited, minimally intrusive request for shoes. | Pirtle does not apply to this custodial, limited seizure of shoes. |
| Would suppression have been granted, affecting the verdict? | Suppression would have excluded inculpatory evidence and statements. | Even without the challenged evidence, other strong evidence supported guilt. | Motion to suppress would have been denied; no effect on outcome. |
| Did the state court’s application of Strickland/AEDPA standards comply with federal law? | State court misapplied Strickland and AEDPA standards to find no prejudice. | State courts reasonably applied Strickland and AEDPA; decision not unreasonable. | Yes; state court’s application was not unreasonable; habeas relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (strong presumption of effectiveness; prejudice requires substantial likelihood of different outcome)
- Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975) (custodial rights to counsel before consent to search; weighty intrusions)
- Sims v. State, 413 N.E.2d 556 (1980) (Indiana rule related to Pirtle; later overruled on other grounds)
- Garcia-Torres v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1229 (2011) (Pirtle applies to weightiest intrusions; not to all custodial searches)
- Datzek v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1149 (2005) (Pirtle not applied to chemical tests; custodial searches vary by intrusion level)
- Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925 (2004) (Pirtle applicability limited for certain custodial testing contexts)
- Ackerman v. State, 774 N.E.2d 970 (2002) (limiting scope of Pirtle when searches are not unlimited)
- Clarke v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1114 (2007) (Indiana Constitution interpretation of Pirtle; guide on advisement requirement)
- Toliver v. McCaughtry, 539 F.3d 766 (2008) (AEDPA deference and standard of review on habeas review)