Jackson v. Weber

2001 SD 136, 2001 SD 30, 637 N.W.2d 19, 2001 S.D. LEXIS 161

Opinions

SABERS, Justice

(reassignment on rehearing).

[¶ 1.] The facts underlying this habeas corpus proceeding are set forth in Jackson v. Weber, # 21364, 2001 SD 30, 623 N.W.2d 71 (2001). The state filed a petition for rehearing which was granted on April 18, 2001.

[¶2.] Upon rehearing and rebriefing by the parties, we determine that the second habeas court held a hearing and determined against ineffective assistance of counsel in the first habeas, and that there is not a sufficient showing to overcome that determination. Therefore, we affirm the order of the habeas court which denied the petition.

[¶ 3.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and AMUNDSON and KONENKAMP, Justices, and MILLER, Retired Chief Justice, concur.

SABERS, Justice (on reassignment).

[¶ 4.] Jackson appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief, which was denied pursuant to SDCL 21-27-16.1 because he failed to raise the jurisdictional issue in his first habeas petition. Jackson claims his initial habeas counsel was ineffective in not raising said issue. Since a person is entitled to effective assistance of counsel under South Dakota law to determine on habeas on one occasion whether he received effective assistance of counsel in the main event, we reverse and remand for a hearing.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶ 5.] Jackson was convicted of aggravated assault on December 23, 1988. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years in the state penitentiary. That sentence was suspended and Jackson was placed on three years of probation. On three separate occasions, for various infractions, the State filed motions to revoke Jackson’s suspended sentence. Each time, Jackson was ordered to serve time in the county jail. A fourth motion to revoke was filed on January 29, 1991. As a result of this motion, Jackson was sentenced to 15 years in the State penitentiary on April 1, 1991. At a hearing to modify the sentence on December 9, 1991, the trial court stated:

I’ll stay execution on the balance of his sentence on condition that he abide by the standard probation agreement with the Court Services for a period of three years, that he pay restitution in all cases here in Minnehaha County, that he repay Minnehaha County for his court appointed attorney fees through Court Services.

I’m not positive — I might — I might even stick him on intense [probation], but I’m not sure yet. I haven’t made up my mind. But I’ll let you know before the first if I do that, of course. He’ll have to be accepted and successfully complete intense probation.

On December 31, 1991, the trial court issued a written order suspending the remainder of Jackson’s sentence and placing him into intensive probation, and upon completion of that program, three years of standard probation. On January 17, 1992, Jackson signed a form entitled “Conditions of Intense Probation,” which referenced the December 31, 1991 order. That form provided that the period of probation would be for three years, without mention of an initial period of intense probation.

[¶ 6.] On May 23, 1992, the State moved to revoke Jackson’s probation based on numerous violations. Because of these violations, the trial court ordered Jackson to serve 90 days in the county jail and to remain out of the State of South Dakota for five years from the date of his release. On March 3, 1995, the State moved to revoke Jackson’s suspended sentence, alleging that he had violated his probation when he committed the offenses of false impersonation and resisting arrest. At a hearing on April 24, 1995, the trial court revoked Jackson’s suspended sentence, and reimposed the original fifteen-year sentence. Jackson’s sentence was later reduced to ten years.

[¶ 7.] On March 12, 1997, Jackson filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged the revocation of his suspended sentence in 1995 was unconstitutional as a violation of due process. Jackson claimed that the 1992 order revoked the prison sentence, rather than merely suspending it, therefore, no suspended prison sentence remained that could be re-imposed in 1995. This habeas petition was denied on December 9, 1997. The habeas court also denied Jackson’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

[¶ 8.] The present habeas petition was filed on July 20, 1999. This petition alleged that the original trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Jackson’s suspended sentence because Jackson’s probation expired on January 1, 1995 and the original habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to assert this jurisdictional error. This allegation of jurisdictional error rested upon the trial court’s statement at the December 1991 hearing that it would stay the balance of Jackson’s sentence, if he completed three years of probation. Jackson claimed that this oral pronouncement was clear and unambiguous as to the length of probation (three years), and that the court’s subsequent written order of three years probation plus intense probation invalidly contradicted its prior oral sentence. The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition based on SDCL 21-27-16.1, which provides as follows:

All grounds for relief available to a petitioner under this chapter shall be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application. Any ground not raised ... may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds grounds for relief asserted which for reasonable cause were omitted or inadequately raised in the original, supplemental or amended application, (emphasis added).

The habeas court granted the State’s motion on December 15, 1999 and Jackson appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 9.] Our standard of review for a habeas appeal is well established. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for direct review. Because habeas corpus is a collateral attack upon a final judgment, our scope of review is limited. On habeas review, the petitioner has the initial burden of proof. We review the habeas court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. Weddell v. Weber, 2000 SD 3, ¶ 13, 604 N.W.2d 274, 279 (quoting Sund v. Weber, 1998 SD 123, ¶ 12, 588 N.W.2d 223, 225) (other citations omitted). Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. Jenner v. Dooley, 1999 SD 20, ¶ 11, 590 N.W.2d 463, 468.

[¶10.] UNDER SOUTH DAKOTA LAW, A PERSON IS ENTITLED TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO DETERMINE ON HA-BEAS ON ONE OCCASION WHETHER HE RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE MAIN EVENT. THEREFORE, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON STATE HABEAS OVERCOMES THE PROCEDURAL BAR OF SDCL 21-27-16.1.

[¶ 11.] To escape the mandate of SDCL 21-27-16.1, a habeas petitioner must generally show “reasonable cause.” To clarify the definition of reasonable cause, we adopted the federal “cause and prejudice” test in Gregory v. Solem, 449 N.W.2d 827, 831 (S.D.1989). Before relief will be granted under that test, a petitioner must show:

1. Cause for his omission or failure to previously raise the grounds for ha-beas relief; and

2. Actual prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation.

To show “cause,” the petitioner “must show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with [SDCL 21-27-16.1].” Id. at 830. The “prejudice” prong requires the petitioner to show “ ‘that [the errors] worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.’ ” Id. at 831 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 494, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2648, 91 L.Ed.2d 397, 412 (1986)) (emphasis in original).

[¶ 12.] It is beyond dispute that our legislature has required that counsel be appointed for indigent prisoners in habeas proceedings. SDCL 21-27-4. Our legislature has spoken in spite of the fact that the United States Constitution does not mandate this requirement. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 755, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2567, 115 L.Ed.2d 640, 672 (1991). In light of our legislature’s pronouncement, we must determine the standard to govern an ineffectiveness claim in a habeas appeal.

[¶ 13.] In Krebs v. Weber, there was dicta which indicated that the Strickland standard was not appropriate for determining if the statutory right to counsel had been fulfilled. The State asserts that this dicta mandates that the Gregory, “cause and prejudice test” should govern instances when the right to counsel was statutorily granted.

[¶ 14.] The effective assistance of counsel standard announced in Strickland is well established. As recognized by at least one other court, “it would be absurd to have the right to appointed counsel who is not required to be competent.” Lozada, 613 A.2d at 821; Iovieno v. Comm. of Correction, 242 Conn. 689, 699 A.2d 1003, 1010 (1997). We will not presume that our legislature has mandated some “useless formality” requiring the mere physical presence of counsel as opposed to effective and competent counsel. Lozada, 613 A.2d at 821.

[¶ 15.] The actual holding in Krebs supports this position. As the majority in Krebs noted, “no attorney, even one mounting a textbook perfect all-out effort let alone one who meets the Strickland standard of competence, could have produced a different result.” Krebs, 2000 SD 40, at ¶ 12, 608 N.W.2d at 326; see also Id. at ¶ 21 (Sabers, J., concurring specially in part and dissenting in part). A position that a statutory right to counsel does not mean effective assistance of counsel is at odds with commonsense and our prior analytical framework. In other words, if the appointment of incompetent counsel was adequate in Krebs, there would have been no reason to even consider Strickland, ineffectiveness, or prejudice. To the extent the dicta in Krebs is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled.¹

[¶ 16.] We agree with the rationale employed by the Appellate Court of Illinois when addressing the statutory right to counsel. In the Matter of Carmody, 274 Ill.App.3d 46, 210 Ill.Dec. 782, 653 N.E.2d 977, 983 (1995). In addressing this statutory right, the court concluded that providing a right to counsel implicitly included effective counsel, as required by Strickland. Id. “[T]he legislature could not have intended to provide an individual ... with the right to counsel and to permit that counsel to be prejudicially ineffective.” Id. at 984. After being granted a state right “it would be a hollow gesture serving only superficially to satisfy due process requirements.” Id. (citations omitted). We agree with those courts that have held that than an independent right to effective assistance of counsel arises by statute in post-conviction hearings. See Young v. State, 724 So.2d 82, 83 (Ala.Cr.App.1998); Bejarano v. Warden, 112 Nev. 1466, 929 P.2d 922, 926 (1996); McKague v. Whitley, 112 Nev. 159, 912 P.2d 255, 258 n.5 (1996).

[¶ 17.] We recognize that if habe-as counsel must meet the same competency standards as trial counsel, then more than one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may be brought on occasion. However, ineffective assistance of counsel at a prior habeas proceeding is not alone enough for relief in a later habeas action. Any new effort must eventually be directed to error in the original trial or plea of guilty. A refusal to acknowledge that the requirement of counsel means constitutionally effective counsel would weaken the habeas mechanism to ensure “as a bulwark against convictions that violate fundamental fairness.” Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834, 613 A.2d 818, 822 (1992). Jackson’s decision to exercise his right, as provided by state statute, requires this Court to recognize his constitutional substantive due process right to effective assistance of counsel.

[¶ 18.] Our holding must be that the counsel mandated by SDCL 21-27-4 makes it “implicit that this means competent counsel.” Lozada, 613 A.2d at 822. Therefore, the decision to dismiss Jackson’s petition pursuant to SDCL 21-27-16.1 is reversed. Jackson is entitled to a hearing to determine whether his initial habeas counsel was deficient, and, if so, whether it resulted in prejudice under Strickland.

[¶ 19.] Therefore, we reverse and remand for a hearing consistent with this opinion.

[¶ 20.] AMUNDSON, Justice, concurs.

[¶ 21.] KONENKAMP, Justice, concurs specially.

[¶ 22.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and MILLER, Retired Chief Justice, dissent.

Footnotes

1

. The dissent's accusation that we are overturning Krebs on a mere whim is absurd. The light in which the dissent reads Krebs evidences the very reason it must be overruled. The dicta in Krebs compromises its real holding.