Degree v. Corey

Background

Dontae Degree filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of claims arising from his criminal case. United States Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy recommended that the petition be denied. Degree objected. Because judgment had been entered before the district court had an opportunity to consider his objections, Judge Seibel treated the objections as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), granted that motion, and considered the objections.

Degree’s objections

Degree first challenged the conclusion that his claim about legally insufficient evidence was procedurally barred. The state appellate court had ruled that Degree failed to preserve the claim because he made only a general motion to dismiss rather than specifically arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient. Judge Seibel found no clear error in that conclusion. She also stated that the prosecution had presented a strong circumstantial case and that, even if she reached the merits, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Degree next argued that the magistrate judge overlooked affidavits submitted with his motion to renew a request to set aside the verdict based on juror misconduct. Judge Seibel held that federal review of the renewal ruling was barred because Degree had not appealed that ruling and therefore had not exhausted the claim in state court. She also concluded that the state-law requirement that Degree justify the late submission of the affidavits independently barred federal review. In any event, the affidavits showed only a dispute about how well the juror knew Degree’s relatives; they did not suggest that the juror knew facts about the case outside the trial or was biased against Degree.

Degree also objected to the treatment of his claim that the trial court improperly restricted cross-examination. He argued that the claim involved both the constitutional right to confront witnesses and the right to present a defense. Judge Seibel found no clear error in the conclusion that the questions were properly excluded because they invited speculation about an unknown alternative shooter. She further held that Degree had not preserved the federal constitutional claims under state law because merely objecting, without asserting the relevant federal constitutional right, was insufficient.

Finally, Degree argued that his lawyer was ineffective. He claimed that counsel opened the door to evidence of Degree’s criminal record by questioning Degree’s girlfriend about his calm and nonviolent character. Judge Seibel agreed with the magistrate judge that the questioning was a strategic attempt to present favorable character evidence. The fact that the strategy was unsuccessful did not make it objectively unreasonable, and Degree had not shown that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient.

Ruling and disposition

Judge Seibel concluded that Degree’s objections lacked merit and that the portions of the recommendation to which he did not object contained no clear error. She adopted the Report and Recommendation as the court’s decision and dismissed the petition. Because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, the court did not issue a certificate of appealability. The court also vacated the February 15, 2024 judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) and directed the Clerk to enter a new judgment for Respondent Joseph Corey.