Hussеin Osman Abdi, Appellant, v. Mike Hatch; Eric Newmark; Amy Klobuchar; Thomas Wexler, Appellees.
No. 05-2467
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Submitted: March 14, 2006; Filed: June 8, 2006
Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Hussein Osman Abdi appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Abdi was charged in Hennepin County, Minnesota, with five counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a twelve-year-old girl who lived with Abdi and his wife. Abdi consented to a bench trial, waived his right to confront the statе‘s witnesses, and stipulated to the admission of the state‘s documentary evidence, including DNA reports. In exchange, the state agreed that if Abdi were convicted of all five counts, the state would recommend a 144-month prison sentence—the
A magistrate judge1 recommended the denial of Abdi‘s habeas petition, concluding that (1) the Minnesota Court of Appeals applied the proper standard in reviewing Abdi‘s ineffective-assistance claim and prоperly concluded that counsel‘s decision not to request a hearing was a matter of trial strategy, (2) Abdi failed to establish that the admission of the DNA reports constituted a due-process violation warranting habeas relief, and (3) Abdi‘s testimonial-privilege claim was procedurally defaulted and without merit in any event. Adopting the magistrate judge‘s report and recommendation, the District Court2 denied relief on all of Abdi‘s claims but granted a certificate of appealаbility on Abdi‘s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective and his claim that the trial court erred in admitting the DNA reports.
When considering a petition for habeas relief, we review a district court‘s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Lyons v. Luebbers, 403 F.3d 585, 592 (8th Cir. 2005). If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court, habeas relief is warranted only if the petitioner shows that the state court
We turn first to Abdi‘s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a hearing to challenge the admissibility of the DNA reports.3 To prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim, Abdi “must show that his trial counsel‘s performance fell below the standard of customary skill and diligence that a reasonably comрetent attorney would display and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different but for the substandard actions of сounsel.” Rousan v. Roper, 436 F.3d 951, 959 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). Judicial review of counsel‘s performance is “highly deferential,” and there is “a strong presumption that counsel‘s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. at 689.
After identifying the appropriate standard for reviewing claims of ineffective assistance, the Minnesotа Court of Appeals concluded that Abdi‘s trial counsel‘s decision not to request a hearing to challenge the admissibility of the DNA reports was a matter of triаl strategy. Abdi v. State, No. A03-162, 2003 WL 22998859, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2003) (unpublished). The court also pointed out that “because Abdi agreed to stipulate to the admission of the DNA evidencе received at trial,” he could not claim that he was surprised or prejudiced when the trial court
Abdi next argues that the trial court erred by considering the DNA evidence because the state failed to establish that thе authors of the DNA reports were qualified experts. Abdi‘s argument fails. The admission of evidence at a state trial provides a basis for federal habeas rеlief when the “evidentiary ruling infringes upon a specific constitutional protection or is so prejudicial that it amounts to a denial of due process.” Turner v. Armontrout, 845 F.2d 165, 169 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 928 (1988). The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that once Abdi stipulated to the admissibility of the DNA reports, he necessarily stipulated to the expertise оf the reports’ authors and that the trial court did not err in admitting and relying on the DNA reports. Abdi, 2003 WL 22998859, at *3. Abdi has failed to establish that the trial court‘s admission of the DNA reports was errоr, much less the prejudicial error required to justify habeas relief. The District Court did not err in denying habeas relief on this ground.
Finally, Abdi claims that he was coerced into waiving his privilege against self-incrimination and that the waiver was therefore not knowing or voluntary. To preserve a claim for relief, “a habeas petitionеr must have raised both the factual and legal bases” of his claim to the state court, Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 946 (1994), and afforded that court a fair opportunity to review its merits, Wemark v. Iowa, 322 F.3d 1018, 1021 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 870 (2003). Where a claim is defaulted, a federal habeas court will consider it only if the
We conclude that the District Court did not err in denying habeas relief on each of the grounds for which Abdi wаs granted a certificate of appealability. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the District Court denying the writ of habeas corpus.