Winn v. Blades, 1:16-cv-00390

Background

In 2008–2011 Winn was accused by his granddaughter (J.H.) and her brother (M.H.); Winn later admitted during a polygraph pre-test that he sexually abused J.H. on multiple occasions.
Winn pleaded guilty in Ada County to sexual abuse of a minor under sixteen; he received a unified 25‑year sentence with 12 years fixed.
On direct appeal Winn’s counsel abandoned the motion‑to‑withdraw‑plea claim; the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed and the Idaho Supreme Court denied review.
Winn pursued state post‑conviction relief; the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and Winn’s petition for review to the Idaho Supreme Court was dismissed as untimely under Idaho Appellate Rule 118 after Winn failed to respond to a conditional dismissal order.
Winn filed a federal habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims (mirroring his state post‑conviction appellate brief); respondent moved to dismiss as procedurally defaulted.
The district court struck Winn’s unauthorized sur‑replies, found his claims procedurally defaulted for failure to fairly present them to the Idaho Supreme Court, rejected Martinez and actual‑innocence exceptions, and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Winn's Argument	Blades' Argument	Held
Whether Winn’s federal claims are exhausted/fairly presented to Idaho Supreme Court	Winn contends his post‑conviction appellate brief raised IAC and due process; he asserts his petition for review was mailed timely (prison mailbox)	Respondent argues Winn failed to present claims to Idaho Supreme Court because his petition for review was untimely and he did not respond to conditional dismissal	Court held claims were not fairly presented to Idaho Supreme Court and thus are unexhausted/procedurally defaulted
Whether Idaho Appellate Rule 118 dismissal is an adequate and independent state ground	Winn argues prison‑mailbox rule would make filing timely	Respondent argues Rule 118 is firmly established and consistently applied; Winn failed to verify mailing date so Rule 118 applied	Court held Rule 118 is an adequate and independent procedural bar; Winn failed to rebut it
Whether cause and prejudice (including Martinez) excuse default	Winn points to ineffective assistance of post‑conviction appellate counsel and pro se status; he also notes counsel withdrew	Respondent argues Martinez does not apply because default occurred at appellate stage and errors in post‑conviction appellate counsel do not establish cause	Court held Martinez inapplicable: default occurred at discretionary review stage; no adequate cause shown
Whether miscarriage‑of‑justice (actual innocence) exception applies	Winn alleges recantations by victim and brother and disputes his polygraph statements	Respondent relies on Winn’s admissions to polygraph examiner and absence of new, reliable exculpatory evidence	Court held Winn failed to produce new, reliable evidence of factual innocence; exception not met

Key Cases Cited

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (exhaustion requires presentation of federal claims to state’s highest court when discretionary review exists)
Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (fair‑presentation requires both operative facts and legal theory)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (general rule that attorney errors in post‑conviction proceedings cannot establish cause)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (limited exception allowing ineffective‑assistance‑in‑initial‑review‑collateral‑proceedings to establish cause for default of trial‑IAC claims)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (clarifies Martinez applicability and its prongs)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual‑innocence gateway requires new, reliable evidence showing it is more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict)
Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (state procedural rules must be firmly established and regularly followed to be adequate)
Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (burden shifts to petitioner to show state procedural rule is not adequate or is dependent on federal law)