2254 petitioner was barred from a CSLI claim because it wasn’t raised in state court where he had an opportunity to litigate. It’s no defense to attempt to overcome Stone preclusion that Carpenter came after the trial court decision because it’s clear where decided that Carpenter wasn’t retroactive. Darby v. Vannoy, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166854 (E.D. La. Aug. 14, 2020):
To obtain federal review and overcome the Stone v. Powell bar, Darby is required to prove that he had no meaningful opportunity for review of his Fourth Amendment claim in the state courts. He has not met this burden.
Darby does not allege or demonstrate that Louisiana state courts routinely or systematically preclude litigation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment claims. On the contrary, he used that opportunity for review of such claims in the state district court pretrial. In addition, this court has found that “[i]t is beyond cavil that Louisiana courts provide criminal defendants the opportunity to raise Fourth Amendment claims.” Bailey v. Cain, No. 06-839, 2007 WL 1198911, at *13 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2007) (Duval, J.) (order adopting report and recommendation).
In the instant case, Darby asserted a Fourth Amendment claim in the state district court, where he was afforded an evidentiary hearing. He simply was not successful in obtaining relief. While he did not raise the issue on appeal, he had the opportunity to do so. Even if the state court erred in its disposition of the Fourth Amendment claim, the Stone v. Powell bar still applies, because Darby has not shown that Louisiana’s processes routinely and systematically applied to prevent adjudication of Fourth Amendment claims. See Williams, 609 F.2d at 220; Cole, 548 F.2d at 1165. This Court’s review of Darby’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred by the doctrine under Stone v. Powell. Darby’s claim must be dismissed for this reason.
Lastly, while Darby argues that the Carpenter decision was not issued until after his direct appeal, the United States Supreme Court did not declare Carpenter retroactive. Nor has any subsequent Supreme Court case done so. Thus, he is not entitled to habeas relief under Carpenter. United States v. Narvaez, No. 18 CV 3629, 2020 WL 3275734, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 2020) (citing United States v. Sandoval, No. CR 16-060 WES, 2020 WL 374701, at *4 (D.R.I. Jan. 23, 2020)); United States v. Shaw, No. 12-20044-JWL, 2020 WL 1233751, at *3 (D. Kan March 13, 2020); United States v. Davis, 2019 WL 1584634, 1:13-cr-28, 2019 WL 1584634, at * 2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2019), appeal filed, 19-2039 (3rd Cir. May 8, 2019).