Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Follett v. Baker

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 12, 2018

LOREN RAYMOND FOLLETT, Petitioner,
v.
RENEE BAKER, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Introduction

         This habeas corpus action, brought by Nevada prisoner Loren Raymond Follett, is before the Court with respect to the merits of the claims remaining in Follett's petition. The Court will deny Follett's petition.

         Background

         On March 30, 2012, after a jury trial, Follett was convicted of sexual assault in Nevada's Second Judicial District Court, and he was sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole after ten years. See Judgment of Conviction, Exhibit 43 (ECF No. 9-3) (The exhibits referred to in this order were filed by respondents and are located in the record at ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.).

         Follett appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on May 15, 2013. See Order of Affirmance, Exhibit 64 (ECF No. 10-4).

         Follett then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state district court on April 21, 2014. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Post-Conviction), Exhibit 73 (ECF Nos. 10-13, 10-14, 10-15). The state district court dismissed Follett's petition in an order filed on November 21, 2014. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 80 (ECF No. 10-22). Follett appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on March 17, 2016. See Order of Affirmance, Exhibit 94 (ECF No. 11-14).

         Follett initiated this federal habeas corpus action on June 23, 2016. In his petition (ECF No. 1), Follett asserts five claims. In Ground 1, Follett claims that he was denied his federal constitutional rights as a result of jury instructions regarding sexual assault. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), pp. 6-11. In Ground 2, Follett claims that his federal constitutional rights were violated “because the trial court erred in permitting the State to present the testimony of an ‘expert' about matters that were irrelevant, would be confusing to the jury, and would not be helpful to the jury's understanding of any issue in the case.” See id. at 11-19. In Ground 3, Follett claims that he was denied his federal constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel “failed to pursue defenses available to petitioner by failing to properly investigate the case and interview witnesses who could assist in petitioner's defense.” See id. at 19-22. In Ground 4, Follett claims that he was denied his federal constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because his appellate counsel “failed to pursue defenses available to petitioner or even file a reply on direct appeal.” See id. at 22-23. And, finally, Ground 5 is a cumulative error claim; Follett claims that his federal constitutional rights were violated as a result of the multiple errors described in his petition. See id. at 23-25.

         Respondents filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) on August 31, 2016, contending that Grounds 2 and 5 are unexhausted in state court. See Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4), pp. 2-4. On November 21, 2016, the Court ruled on that motion, concluding that Ground 2 is unexhausted in state court, and that Ground 5 is exhausted to the extent that his other claims are. See Order entered November 21, 2016 (ECF No. 16). With regard to Ground 2, the Court required Follett to either abandon that claim, or move for a stay so that he could exhaust the claim in state court. See id. Follett then moved for a stay (ECF No. 17). The Court denied the motion for stay on March 27, 2017 (ECF No. 19), and on April 12, 2017, Follett abandoned the unexhausted claim, Ground 2 (ECF No. 20).

         Respondents filed their answer on June 28, 2017 (ECF No. 23). Follett did not file a reply.

         Discussion

         Standard of Review

         28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the standard of review applicable in this case under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA):

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim --
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) 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).

         A state court decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's] cases” or “if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme Court] and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [the Supreme Court's] precedent.” Lockyer v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.