Delaney v. Pugh

Background

Clinton Delaney filed a federal petition challenging his Minnesota state-court conviction for second-degree murder. He is serving a 480-month prison sentence. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review. Delaney did not pursue a state postconviction challenge before filing his federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The petition raised two claims: that the trial court improperly admitted cell-phone location data, and that the prosecutor’s opening and closing remarks deprived Delaney of the presumption of innocence. The warden moved to dismiss. Delaney opposed dismissal and requested a stay so he could pursue state postconviction remedies.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. Because Delaney objected to some portions, the court reviewed those portions independently; it reviewed the unobjected-to portion for clear error.

The court held that the cell-phone-location claim was procedurally defaulted. Delaney could have raised a federal basis for that claim in state court but did not. He also did not show a legally sufficient reason and resulting prejudice to excuse the default. Because state law would prevent him from raising the claim in a later state postconviction proceeding, the court concluded that a stay to pursue that remedy was not warranted.

The court considered the presumption-of-innocence claim on the merits. Under the federal standard for this type of claim, Delaney had to show that the verdict probably would have been different without the alleged improper comments. The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered the trial court’s repeated corrective instructions, the evidence of Delaney’s guilt, and the two challenged statements. The federal court concluded that the state court’s decision was not contrary to, and did not unreasonably apply, clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable factual determination.

The court also rejected Delaney’s request for an evidentiary hearing. It concluded that the case record conclusively showed that he was not entitled to relief, so no hearing was required. The court distinguished Taylor v. Kentucky because, unlike the trial court in that case, Delaney’s trial court repeatedly instructed the jury to presume him innocent.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court granted the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; dismissed the petition with prejudice; denied the Motion to Compel Judgment and Motion to Stay; and ruled that no Certificate of Appealability would issue.