For free consultation call 918 582 1313
Understanding “Habeas Corpus” in Criminal Appeals
In my opinion Oklahoma state courts give defendants more rights than federal courts give them, however, the federal courts are more serious about enforcing those rights. There are numerous cases that were affirmed all the way through the state court appellate process only to be reversed by the federal courts. But, to have a chance at having a state court conviction reversed by a federal court, a defendant must have the right facts and issues in their case and they must follow the procedural rules and make sound legal arguments.
Habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution to federal prisoners whose arrest, trial, or actual sentence violated a federal statute, treaty, or the U.S. Constitution. While a state prisoner can challenge their conviction and/or sentence by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, because the Constitution is the only federal law that governs state criminal procedures, a state prisoner must show a violation of the U.S. Constitution for their habeas petition to be granted.
For a state prisoner, to obtain federal habeas relief, a defendant must show their rights were violated, that the violation was not harmless, and that the state court’s ruling was an unreasonable decision that was contrary to clearly established federal law or involved unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
After a defendant has proven that the proper standard of review was met (presumptions and burdens), a defendant still must show that the error effected the outcome of the trial (the harmless error standard). To show harm, a defendant needs to convince the court that the violation may have negatively affected the outcome of their trial. Also defendants will need to show that the state court was incorrect in failing to find that the violation occurred. If the state court ruled there was a violation, but it was “harmless error”, a defendant will need to show that its finding of “no harm” was unreasonable or contrary to federal law or involved unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Prejudice is an important concept in both the state appeal process and habeas proceedings. It means that there is a “reasonable probability” that the result of a defendants trial would have been different but for the error.
State prisoner defendants generally need to overcome the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) standard to win reversal, which limits federal courts’ ability to grant habeas relief when reviewing claims from state prisoners. Defendants must show the state court appellate decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or that the decision was based upon an “unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” This is a very high standard and it is not easily met. The federal courts do not like to overturn state court decisions. This means that to get federal habeas relief, you cannot just show the federal court that the state court was wrong (meaning that they made a legal error)—you must show that the state court’s ruling was “unreasonable” or “contrary” to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law or involved unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
How the federal court will apply the AEDPA standard of review will depend on how the state court handled a defendants claims in state court, either on direct appeal and/or post-conviction. If the state court made a determination about certain issues, then the federal court will apply the AEDPA standard of review to the state court’s decision-making process. The federal court will look to see if the state court’s decision was “unreasonable” or “contrary” to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law or involved unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. In addition to demonstrating that the state court’s decision-making process was incorrect, a defendant still needs to provide facts that show that the state court’s ultimate determination was incorrect.
What is Required to Get Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
Habeas applicants who satisfy the many procedural requirements previously discussed are entitled to relief only when the conviction is contrary to clearly established federal law, or that involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law” (was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented”) and when they demonstrate actual prejudice. (See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993))
“Demonstrate actual prejudice” is a requirement that a defendant shows that it actually mattered in his or her particular case. When I say “actually mattered” what I am really saying is if this would not have happened in this trial it would have made a difference. Courts also refer to this as the “harmless error” analysis. It is not enough that a defendant shows that in his case that clearly established federal law was violated or that the state appellate court made an unreasonable determination of the facts, a defendant must show that it mattered in their case.
For example, lets say that a defendant is seeking federal habeas for a conviction, and that at the trial the state introduced multiple eye witnesses, a video of the defendant committing the crime, DNA evidence, a note written by the defendant explaining how the defendant intended on committing the crime, and the murder weapon; in a case like that it is probably not going to matter that the police illegally obtained a confession. Why? Because it would not have made a difference. Even if the confession was excluded from the trial the state still had overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the outcome would have been the same. Generally speaking the stronger the state’s case against a defendant, the more difficult it is to get the conviction reversed even if there was legal error.
This means that a defendant could have had evidence introduced at their trial that was obtained in violation of their Constitutional rights and that alone is not enough to get the conviction reversed.
The cause-and-prejudice standard requires that “the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” (See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2))
A state court decision is “contrary to” U.S. Supreme Court precedent if the state court “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [U.S. Supreme Court] cases” or if the state court “confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of the [U.S. Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from precedent.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406 (2000)
A state court’s decision involves an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” when its application is objectively unreasonable. For example, an unreasonable application occurs when a state court correctly identifies the applicable legal principle but unreasonably applies the legal principle to the facts. A federal court may grant relief when a state court has misapplied a “governing legal principle” to “a set of facts different from those of the case in which the principle was announced.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 76 (2003)
Unreasonable is not the same as incorrect. “A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” See Prince v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634 (2003) (though lower court finding was incorrect, it was not objectively unreasonable given that other courts reached similar conclusions).
A federal court may also grant relief based on a state court’s “unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.” (See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)) In Wiggins v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a state court had both unreasonably applied clearly established federal law and unreasonably determined facts in the state court proceedings. The claim in Wiggins was an ineffective assistance of counsel the U.S. Supreme Court held that even if the legal standard used was correct, the decision involved an unreasonable application of clearly established law by adding an additional requirement.
A federal court may only grant relief based on a state court’s determination of facts if the state court adjudication “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) Moreover, state court factual determinations are presumed to be correct, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) and may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence. The presumption of correctness applies only to state court factual determinations. (See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963); see also Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (1985)). The presumption does not apply, for example, when the state court fails to resolve the factual issues or to provide for a full and fair hearing. So a defendant who has a case where the state court did not make factual findings has a lower burden of proof as it relates to the factual determinations than a defendant in which the state court made a factual finding.
Fourth Amendment Claims (Search and Seizure Claims) and Federal Habeas Claims
Most claims based on Fourth Amendment violations are not within the jurisdiction of the federal courts in habeas corpus actions because of the rule set forth in Stone v. Powell. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court barred applicants from pursuing relief based on Fourth Amendment claims in habeas proceedings when the applicant was represented by competent counsel and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim in state court. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). The rationale behind the Stone case is that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule (mainly the deterrence of future unlawful police conduct – would not be furthered by applying the rule on collateral review of cases in which full and fair consideration of the claim had already been given by the state courts). Many lawyers, including myself, strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and reasoning in Stone v. Powell, however it is the law and a defendant needs to plan their appeal accordingly. There are some exceptions to Stone v. Powell, but there are not many cases that will fit into those exceptions.
For a detailed explination of direct appeal, Oklahoma post conviction relief and federal habeas read Understanding Oklahoma's Criminal Appeal Process- An Overview of the Criminal Appeals Process from Direct Appeal through Federal Habeas.You may also find the videos below helpful.
Appeals are About Process
This video explains why appeals are about process not guilt or innocence.
Standard of Review in Criminal Appeals
This video explains Standard of Reviews on appeal.