Riley v. Young , 2016 S.D. LEXIS 63 ( 2016 )

#27501-a-SLZ
2016 S.D. 39IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
JAMES DUANE RILEY, Applicant and Appellant,
v.
DARIN YOUNG, Warden of the
South Dakota State Penitentiary, Respondent and Appellee.
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CUSTER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE THOMAS L. TRIMBLE
Retired Judge
****
PAUL EISENBRAUN
Grey and Eisenbraun Law, Prof. LLC
Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for applicant and
appellant.
MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General
PAUL S. SWEDLUND
Assistant Attorney General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for respondent
and appellee.
****
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON JANUARY 11, 2016
OPINION FILED
04/27/2016
#27501
ZINTER, Justice
[¶1.] We issued a certificate of probable cause to review whether the circuit
court improperly dismissed James Riley’s application for a writ of habeas corpus
without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2.] Riley was convicted of possession of child pornography. The conviction
was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Riley, 2013 S.D. 95, 841 N.W.2d 431. In
November 2014, Riley submitted a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus.
He claimed that his jury trial was impermissibly closed to the public in violation of
the Sixth Amendment, and that his counsel’s failure to object to the closure violated
his right to effective assistance of counsel. 1
[¶3.] The habeas court reviewed Riley’s application together with a portion
of the jury trial transcript. The transcript confirmed that during trial, the State
moved to close the courtroom before it played a video that contained images of child
pornography. However, the habeas court noted that the transcript also indicated
the trial court declined to rule on the motion because no member of the public was
present. The trial court permitted the only non-trial participant (a person
1. Riley also claimed that his counsel’s failure to move for a judgment acquittal
after closing argument constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. This
issue was addressed in Riley’s direct appeal. Riley, 2013 S.D. 95, ¶ 15, 841
N.W.2d at 436. “The doctrine of res judicata disallows reconsidering an issue
that was actually litigated or that could have been raised and decided in a
prior action.” Legrand v. Weber, 2014 S.D. 71, ¶ 28, 855 N.W.2d 121, 129
(quoting Ramos v. Weber, 2000 S.D. 111, ¶ 8, 616 N.W.2d 88, 91).
-1-
#27501
associated with Riley’s defense) to remain. The following is an excerpt of the
exchange:
[State]: Your Honor, I would, at this time, move to publish
this to the jury. I would make a motion to close the
courtroom for viewing.
The Court: I think we only have people present who are
officers or staff and an expert, right? I think we’re
good to go.
[State]: Your Honor, I would note that there’s one
gentleman in the courtroom not associated with
law enforcement or the experts.
The Court: Is that a member of you folks’ team?
[Defense]: Yes, Your Honor. He’s somebody associated with
Jim and we just as soon he stick around if he wants
to or he can leave.
The Court: All right, either way.
Based on this evidence, the habeas court concluded that the courtroom was not
closed, and therefore, Riley’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to
closure. The habeas court dismissed Riley’s application without holding an
evidentiary hearing. It found Riley’s application to be vague and conclusory.
[¶4.] Before proceeding to the merits of this appeal, we note a reoccurring
problem in filing documents and processing habeas corpus actions. The only record
of this habeas proceeding is found in Riley’s criminal file. It appears that his
application for habeas corpus was placed in his criminal file along with the order
dismissing his application. There is also no indication in that record that the State
was notified of the application. The State did not file a return or a motion to
-2-
#27501
dismiss. We reiterate that “habeas proceedings are separate civil actions, they
should be filed as separate civil actions[,]” and they should be processed as a civil
case. State v. Pentecost, 2015 S.D. 71, ¶ 4 n.1, 868 N.W.2d 590, 592 n.1. These
procedural irregularities should not continue.
Decision
[¶5.] The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . .” U.S. Const.
amend. VI. Public trials are conducted “for the benefit of the accused; that the
public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the
presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their
responsibility and to the importance of their functions.” State v. Rolfe, 2013 S.D. 2,
¶ 17, 825 N.W.2d 901, 906 (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46, 104 S. Ct.
2210, 2215, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984)). 2
[¶6.] Riley’s claimed violation of his right to a public trial was dismissed
without an evidentiary hearing. To dismiss an application for a writ of habeas
corpus without receiving evidence, the application must be unspecific, conclusory or
2. “A violation of the right to a public trial is a ‘structural defect affecting the
framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in
the trial process itself.’” Id. ¶ 14, 825 N.W.2d at 905 (quoting Arizona v.
Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1265, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302(1991)). “Structural errors so greatly affect the framework of the trial that
they merit automatic reversal.” State v. Arguello, 2015 S.D. 103, ¶ 5, 873
N.W.2d 490, 493.
-3-
#27501
speculative, setting forth no facts that could support a claim for relief: the
application must fail to meet a minimum threshold of plausibility.
As habeas proceedings are civil in nature, the rules of civil
procedure apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with
SDCL chapter 21-27. SDCL 15-6-81(a). Motions to dismiss,
therefore, are appropriate to dispose of nonmeritorious
applications. A court may dismiss a habeas corpus petition for
failure to state a claim under SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5) only if it
appears beyond doubt that the petition sets forth no facts to
support a claim for relief. Fact allegations must be viewed in a
light most favorable to the petitioner. A motion to dismiss
under § 12(b)(5) challenges the legal sufficiency of the petition.
As the United States Supreme Court noted, when a court
reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the
reception of any evidence ... its task is necessarily a
limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff
will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is
entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.
Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings
that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that
is not the test. [Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,
236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974).]
Motions to dismiss in civil actions are generally disfavored, but
a habeas petition may be more susceptible to dismissal because
the remedy it seeks is limited, being in the nature of a collateral
attack on a final judgment. To survive a motion to dismiss
under § 12(b)(5), an application for habeas corpus must pass a
minimum “threshold of plausibility.” If an applicant’s
allegations are unspecific, conclusory, or speculative, the court
may rightfully entertain a motion to dismiss.
Steiner v. Weber, 2011 S.D. 40, ¶ 5, 815 N.W.2d 549, 551 (quoting Jenner v. Dooley,
1999 S.D. 20, ¶ 13, 590 N.W.2d 463, 469).
[¶7.] Ordinarily, “whether an applicant fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted must be ascertained from the face of the application.” Jenner,
1999 S.D. 20, ¶ 14, 590 N.W.2d at 469. In this case, the habeas court also reviewed
-4-
#27501
Riley’s trial transcript. “In habeas actions a court may take judicial notice of an
applicant’s prior judicial proceedings.” Id. ¶ 15, 590 N.W.2d at 470. A habeas court
may take judicial notice of prior judicial proceedings “whether requested or not.” Id.Because the habeas court looked beyond the application and considered the trial
transcript, we must “examine the same materials to decide if the [habeas] court
ruled correctly.” Id. ¶ 16, 590 N.W.2d at 470. Therefore, our question on appeal is
whether the allegations in Riley’s application, coupled with the facts disclosed in
the trial transcript, could support a claim that his trial was improperly closed.
Because the habeas court dismissed “as a matter of law, our review is de novo[.]”
Steiner, 2011 S.D. 40, ¶ 4, 815 N.W.2d at 551 (internal quotation marks omitted)
(citations omitted).
[¶8.] Riley’s application asserted no facts supporting his allegation. He did
not allege that any person was excluded from his trial. He asserted nothing but a
single legal conclusion that “his jury trial was impermissibly closed to the public in
violation of his rights to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment.” That legal
conclusion is “unspecific, conclusory, and speculative.” See id. ¶ 5, 815 N.W.2d at
551. Moreover, the trial transcript confirms that when the State made the motion
to close the courtroom, no member of the public was present. The only non-trial
participant in the courtroom was an individual associated with Riley’s defense, and
he was allowed to remain. The trial court, in an obvious reaction to the lack of any
spectators, simply declined to rule on the motion. We agree with the habeas court
that under these facts “there was no closure[.]” Because Riley’s allegation of a Sixth
-5-
#27501
Amendment public-trial violation failed to meet the “minimum threshold of
plausibility,” see id. ¶ 11, 815 N.W.2d at 553, we affirm.
[¶9.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SEVERSON, WILBUR and KERN,
Justices, concur.
-6-