163360P.pdf   08/03/2018  Charles Rhines  v.  Darin Young
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-3360
                          and No:  17-1060
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - State Habeas. Death Penalty Matter. The South Dakota 
   Supreme Court's determination that the warnings given Rhines after his 
   arrest were adequate was an objectively reasonable application of Miranda; 
   claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of 
   Rhines's trial rejected, as counsel had a reasonable basis for their 
   strategic decision that an explanation of Rhines's history and the 
   presentation of other witnesses would not have minimized the risk of the 
   death penalty and might have opened the door to "bad acts" evidence 
   counsel had managed to get excluded; the district court did not abuse its 
   discretion by denying Rhines's motion to amend his petition and stay the 
   matter so that he could pursue new, unexhausted claims; a habeas 
   petitioner granted a limited stay to exhaust state post-conviction 
   remedies who returns to federal court and requests another stay to exhaust 
   additional claims is deliberately engaging in dilatory tactics and 
   intentional delay that are completely at odds with AEDPA's purpose to 
   reduce delays in capital cases; in any event, the new claims would have 
   been procedurally barred under South Dakota law, and further exhaustion 
   would have been futile; the South Dakota Supreme Court's decision that it 
   was not error to permit the victim's mother to read a victim impact 
   statement at sentencing was not an unreasonable application of clearly 
   established law concerning the Ex Post Facto clause or a violation of 
   defendant's due process rights; the South Dakota Supreme Court's decision 
   that the trial judge did not err in declining to answer the jury's 
   questions regarding the nature of a life sentence was not an unreasonable 
   application of clearly established federal law; the jury found three valid 
   aggravating factors and the South Dakota Supreme Court's invalidation of a 
   fourth factor - depravity of mind - as constitutionally overbroad did not 
   invalidate the death sentence; Rhines's request for permission to file a 
   second or successive habeas is denied.