Alston v. Dep't Of Corr.

Decision Date08 July 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-15137.,09-15137.
Citation610 F.3d 1318
PartiesPressley ALSTON, Petitioner-Appellant,v.DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State of FLORIDA, Florida Attorney General's Office, Respondents-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Richard Adam Sichta (Court-Appointed), Frank John Tassone, Jr. (Court-Appointed), Tassone, Sichta & Dreicer, LLC, Jacksonville, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Thomas David Winokur, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, and BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

DUBINA, Chief Judge:

Petitioner Pressley Bernard Alston, a Florida death row inmate, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The state court decided that Alston was competent to waive his state post-conviction proceedings and that his waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The district court found the state court's decision a reasonable application of clearly established federal law and a reasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. After reading the parties' briefs, hearing oral argument, and reviewing the record, we affirm the district court's order denying Alston federal habeas relief.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts

The facts are taken verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's decision on direct appeal from Alston's convictions and sentences.

The victim in this case, James Lee Coon, was last seen January 22, 1995, while visiting his grandmother at the University Medical Center in Jacksonville. Coon's red Honda Civic was discovered the next day abandoned behind a convenience store. A missing persons report was filed shortly thereafter.
At trial, Gwenetta Faye McIntyre testified that on January 19, 1995, appellant was living at her home when they had a disagreement and she left town. On January 23, 1995, the day after Coon's disappearance, McIntyre returned to Jacksonville. On that day, McIntyre and three of her children were in her gray Monte Carlo parked at a convenience store when appellant and Dee Ellison, appellant's half-brother, drove up in a red Honda Civic. They parked the Honda perpendicular to the Monte Carlo, blocking McIntyre's exit. Appellant got out of the Honda and approached McIntyre, who reacted by driving her car forward and backward into the store and into the Honda. Appellant took McIntyre's keys from the ignition. He then went back to the Honda and drove it around to the back of the convenience store, where he abandoned it. Appellant and Ellison then got into the Monte Carlo, and everyone left the scene together. At that time, McIntyre asked appellant about the Honda. He replied that it was stolen. McIntyre also noticed that appellant was carrying her .32 caliber revolver, which she kept at her home.
Despite their previous differences and the incident at the convenience store, appellant continued to live with McIntyre. Soon thereafter, McIntyre began seeing news broadcasts and reading news reports about Coon's disappearance and the fact that Coon drove a red Honda Civic, which was found abandoned behind a convenience store. McIntyre became suspicious of appellant. When she confronted him with her suspicions, he suggested that someone was trying to set him up. McIntyre was also concerned because the news stories contained eyewitness accounts of the red Honda being rammed by a gray Monte Carlo in the parking lot of the same convenience store behind which the Honda was found. Appellant suggested painting the Monte Carlo a different color, which appellant did on or about February 19, 1995.
McIntyre testified that she became more suspicious when appellant asked her how long it would take for a body to decompose and how long it would take for a fingerprint to evaporate from a bullet. McIntyre confided her suspicions in her minister, who eventually put her in touch with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. On May 25, 1995, McIntyre went to the sheriff's office to talk with several detectives, including Detectives Baxter and Roberts. After the interview with McIntyre, police secured McIntyre's consent to search her home. Police retrieved, among other things, McIntyre's .32 caliber revolver from her home.
Based on the information that McIntyre gave to detectives and the evidence gathered from her home, police arrested Ellison and later on the same day arrested appellant. At the police station, appellant was read his rights, and he signed a constitutional rights waiver form. After detectives told appellant that they knew about the incident at the convenience store, that they had the murder weapon, and that they had Ellison in custody, appellant confessed, both orally and in writing, to his involvement in the crime.
In his written confession, appellant stated that during the week preceding Coon's disappearance, appellant had been depressed due to employment and relationship problems. He and Ellison planned to commit a robbery on Saturday, January 21, 1995, but they did not find anyone to rob. On Sunday, January 22, 1995, they saw Coon leave the hospital in his red Honda Civic. Appellant stated that he and Ellison made eye contact with Coon, and Coon “pulled up to them.” Appellant and Ellison got into Coon's car. Ellison rode in the front seat and appellant in the back. After Coon drove a short distance, Ellison pointed a revolver at Coon and took Coon's watch. Appellant told Coon to continue driving. They rode out to Heckscher Drive and stopped. Ellison then took Coon's wallet, and he and appellant split the cash found inside, which totaled between $80 and $100. As appellant searched Coon's car, some people came up, so appellant, Dee, and Coon drove away. They drove to another location, where appellant and Ellison shot Coon to death.
Following the confession, appellant agreed to show detectives the location of Coon's body. Appellant directed Detectives Baxter, Roberts, and Hinson, along with uniformed police, to a remote, densely wooded location on Cedar Point Road. Detective Baxter testified that a continuous drive from the University Medical Center to where Coon's body was found, a distance of approximately twenty miles, takes twenty-five to thirty minutes. During the ensuing search, Detective Hinson asked appellant what happened when appellant took Coon into the woods. Appellant replied, We had robbed somebody and taken him in [the] woods and I shot him twice in the head.” Because of the darkness and the thickness of the brush, police were unable to find Coon's body, and they terminated the search for the remainder of that evening.
On the way back to the police station, at appellant's request, he was taken to his mother's house. When Detective Baxter mentioned that appellant was arrested regarding the Coon investigation, appellant's mother asked appellant, “Did you kill him?” Appellant replied, “Yeah, momma.” The detectives then took appellant back to the police station. By then, it was 3:30 on the morning of May 26, 1995. At that time, the detectives had to walk appellant to the jail, which is across the street from the police station. A police information officer alerted the media that a suspect in the Coon murder was about to be “walked over” to the jail. During the “walk-over,” which was recorded on videotape by a television news reporter, appellant made several inculpatory remarks in response to questions from reporters.
Later during the morning of May 26, 1995, Detectives Baxter and Hinson, with uniformed officers, took appellant back to the wooded area and resumed their search for Coon's body. At this time, appellant was again advised of his constitutional rights. Appellant waived his rights and directed the detectives to the area that was searched the previous day. The body was discovered within approximately ten minutes of the group's return to the area.
The remains of Coon were skeletal. The skull was apparently moved from the rest of the skeleton by animals. Three bullets were recovered from the scene. One was found in the victim's skull. One was in the dirt where the skull would have been had it not been moved. Another was inside the victim's shirt near his pocket. Using dental records, a medical expert positively identified the remains as those of James Coon. The expert also testified that the cause of death was three gunshot wounds, two to the head and one to the torso. The expert stated that he deduced there was a wound to the torso from the bullet hole in the shirt. He explained that the absence of any flesh or soft tissue made it impossible to prove that the bullet found inside the shirt had penetrated the torso. The expert further testified that Coon was likely lying on the ground when shot in the head.
A firearm expert testified that the bullets recovered at the scene were .32 caliber, which was the same caliber as the weapon retrieved from McIntyre's home. This expert further testified that, in his opinion, there was a ninety-nine percent probability that the bullet found in the victim's skull came from McIntyre's revolver. However, because the bullet found in the dirt and the bullet found inside Coon's shirt had been exposed for such a long period, a positive link between those two bullets and McIntyre's revolver was impossible.
Later during the day that Coon's body was found, appellant contacted Detective Baxter from the jail and asked the detective to meet with him. Appellant did not make a written statement at this meeting. According to Detective Baxter's testimony, appellant stated that he did not kill Coon but that Ellison and someone named Kurt killed Coon. Appellant stated that he initially placed the blame on himself because he wanted to be “the good guy.” Detective Baxter told appellant that he did not believe him and began to leave. Appellant asked Detective Baxter to stay and told him that he lied about Kurt because he heard that Ellison was placing the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
120 cases
  • Marshall v. Dunn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 23 Octubre 2020
    ...proceeding" – fall outside the ambit of this court's authority to provide relief under § 2254. See Alston v. Department of Corrections , 610 F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).A. A habeas petitioner "can seek federal habeas relief only on claims that have been exhausted in......
  • Esty v. Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • 4 Junio 2015
    ...represent attacks on proceedings collateral to petitioner's confinement and not the confinement itself. See Alston v. Dep't of Corr., Fla., 610 F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that habeas petitioner's challenge to his state postconviction proceeding (the state court's ruling that ......
  • Saunders v. Stewart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • 1 Febrero 2019
    ...the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'" Alston v. Dep't of Corr., Fla., 610 F.3d 1318, 1325 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). Because this claim attacks the Rule 32 proceedings, which is a post-conviction re......
  • McDavid v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • 18 Mayo 2017
    ...does not state a basis for habeas relief." Quince v. Crosby, 360 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Alston v. Dep't of Corrs., Fla., 610 F.3d 1318, 1325 (11th Cir. 2010); Carroll v. Sec'y, DOC, 574 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). There is a valid reason behind t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...relief because petitioner did not present clear and convincing evidence to rebut determination); Alston v. Dep’t of Corr., Fla., 610 F.3d 1318, 1326-28 (11th P ROCEEDINGS V. R EVIEW 1130 51 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. (2022) culpability, 2900 and validity of peremptory challenges. 2901 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT