Robins v. Fortner

Decision Date17 October 2012
Docket NumberNo. 10–6125.,10–6125.
PartiesLeon ROBINS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. James FORTNER, Warden, Respondent–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ON BRIEF:James A. Simmons, Hendersonville, TN, for Appellant. Brent C. Cherry, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Appellee.

Before: ROGERS and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; MARBLEY, District Judge.*

OPINION

ALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge.

Petitioner Leon Robins was convicted of first-degree, premeditated murder in state trial court. After the state appellate court affirmed, Robins filed a habeas corpus petition in which he contends his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons. The state trial court found that counsel's representation was not deficient or prejudicial, and the state appellate court affirmed. Robins filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the district court, which was amended and then dismissed by the district court. Because Robins fails to demonstrate that the state appellate court's decision was unreasonable or improper under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) deference, we AFFIRM.

I.
A.

The following facts are taken from the state appellate court's decision affirming the state trial court's conviction of Robins and his co-defendant, Tabatha White, for first-degree, premeditated murder:

Around 10:00 p.m. on February 29, 2000, Lyntasha Simmons was inside her apartment at Nashville's Parkway Terrace Apartments when she heard gunshots outside. She looked out her door and saw a person lying on the ground. She had just telephoned the police when an onlooker informed her that it was her brother, Eugene Simmons, also known as Michael Roach, who had been shot. Simmons dropped the phone, ran to her brother's side, and waited for the police to arrive. The victim was transported by ambulance to Vanderbilt Hospital where he died the next day. Metro Nashville Police Officer Terrence Graves testified that, at 10:08 p.m., he received a dispatch regarding a shooting at that location. He arrived within a minute, saw that the victim had suffered gunshot wounds, and secured the scene.

Amelia Patterson testified that she, along with Pamela Johnson, Tara Johnson, and their cousin, Gerald Johnson, was standing on the porch outside of Pamela's apartment on the night of the shooting. Pamela was on her cell phone talking to a person she referred to as “Tab” when she, referring to the victim, said, [H]ere he go right here.” Pamela told Gerald to bring the victim to her porch. Gerald approached the victim, who was walking just a few feet away, and “kind of like shook him up and brought him over to the porch.” The victim “was refusing, but he finally came over there,” and Pamela put him on the phone to speak with Tab, who wanted to “talk to him about her money.” Patterson testified, “All I heard him say was that he was going to give her money at 11:30.” Patterson said the conversation ended, and “I guess they had told her that they was on their way. They was on the Interstate and she had hung up.” Pamela informed her that their discussion concerned “ten-dollars ($10.00) worth of white,” meaning cocaine.

The victim proceeded to walk away when Pamela again instructed Gerald to bring him back to the porch. The victim protested, explaining that he had to go heat up the bag of food that he was carrying. Pamela responded that he could heat it up at her house and, apparently accepting this offer, he began walking toward her porch. Patterson testified that the victim “didn't make it on the porch,” however. At this moment, Tab, accompanied by a man, emerged from the parking area and asked, “where her mother-fucking money was.” The victim was never given the opportunity to respond to Tab's demand as the man, who was approximately five or six feet away from the victim, pulled a gun from his pocket and shot him. From the witness stand, Patterson identified Tab as the defendant Tabatha White and the gunman as the defendant Leon Robins. Patterson testified that the police attempted to question Pamela Johnson the night of the shooting, but she “wasn't really cooperating” and was “acting like she was hallucinating.”

Tara Johnson testified that, in the days preceding the murder, Tabatha White asked her to keep on the lookout for the victim because she had given him “ten-dollars ($10.00) to do something for her.” She remembered Pamela Johnson talking to White on her cell phone on the night of the shooting and informing her that the victim was present. She testified that Pamela told Gerald Johnson to bring the victim to her, which he did. The victim spoke with White on the telephone and told her that he would pay her at 11:30. As the victim attempted to leave, Gerald forced him to stay, and Pamela told him to heat his food at her house. Before the victim could enter the house, Tabatha White and a man approached. White said she wanted her mother-fucking money,” and the “dude” shot the victim. Tara heard three gunshots fired and ran into the house. She testified that she did not see either person's face, but recognized the voice as that of Tabatha White, even though she “didn't really know [her] that much.”

Pamela Johnson testified that the defendants were at her house [e]ither one or two days before” the shooting, and Tabatha White gave the victim ten dollars to procure drugs. Although she had known White [f]or about two or three years,” it was her first encounter with Leon Robins. When the victim failed to return with either the drugs or the money, White was “mad” and instructed Johnson to be on the lookout for him. On the night of February 29, Johnson, standing in her doorway, spotted the victim and called White on a cell phone. Johnson then called the victim over and put him on the phone with White. The phone cut off and the victim proceeded to leave. She called White back and had her cousin, Gerald Johnson, bring the victim back to the front of her house. Moments later, Robins shot the victim and White said “something to him about her money.” Johnson testified that she thought the defendants were “just going to beat him up or something.”

Detective Danny Satterfield of the Metro Police Department testified that, before trial, Pamela Johnson had told him that she was inside her house when the shooting occurred and could not identify the shooter. At Tabatha White's bond hearing, Johnson again stated that she did not witness the shooting and denied making phone calls to White prior to the shooting.

Saying that she had been scared, Pamela Johnson admitted to lying to the police on the night of the shooting by telling them both that she did not know who shot the victim and that Tabatha White had not been there, as well as lying at White's bond hearing. According to Johnson, White had called her and said “just keep the cool and ... everything will be all right.” At some point, however, Johnson changed her story and identified both defendants from photographic lineups, explaining that she “just had to tell the truth” and her “kids don't need to be having a momma that is getting in trouble for something she didn't do.” On cross-examination, it was elicited from Johnson that the police “coerced” her regarding her testimony. However, neither the details of the alleged coercion, nor its alleged effect, was revealed.

Detective Satterfield testified that, during his investigation, he spoke with Amelia Patterson who told him that she was there and witnessed the shooting incident.” On March 9, 2000, he showed her a photographic lineup of suspects from which she identified Robins without any uncertainty as the man who shot the victim. From another photographic lineup, she identified Tabatha White as the woman who was with Robins....

....

Victoria Shelton, who lived in the apartment complex where the shooting occurred, testified that, on that night, she was inside her house and overheard Gerald Johnson tell the victim “that he was going to give him something.” When the victim explained that he would pay him later that night, Gerald Johnson “kept saying no.” “A few seconds, a couple of minutes” later, she heard four gunshots, went outside, and saw the victim on the ground. She saw a white Chevrolet Cavalier leave the parking lot, and she said that a “light-skinned male black” usually drove that particular car.

Harold Overton testified that he lived in Apartment U–166 at the Knollcrest Apartments. On March 3, 2000, Detective Clifford Mann, responding to an anonymous CrimeStoppers tip, visited Overton to question him about Tabatha White, who lived in nearby apartment U162. He told Detective Mann that he was familiar with White and her occasional visitor, Leon Robins, whom he identified from a photographic lineup. A few nights earlier, according to his testimony, he witnessed Robins engaging in the following conversation:

There was [sic] about three or four guys that were talking, and then one guy walked up and he said Leon, man, ... they are looking for you.... And then he said, like, well, I don't give a fuck, you know, there is more than one Leon ... and then he said besides that, they don't know my last name[.]

On cross-examination, Overton testified that he was fifteen to twenty feet away from the conversation and that, although it was dark, the area was well lit by a streetlight.

....

Marion Tucker testified on behalf of Leon Robins that, on the night of February 29, he, apparently, was a witness to the confrontation with the victim, saying, “I seen this female come up [and] assault [the victim] over ten-dollars ($10.00), and I turned around and ran, and that is all I seen.” He stated that the woman who said “Where my ten dollars at?” was holding a gun.

Robins' sister, Nicole House, testified that she was with him at their mother's house on the night of the shooting and, when she left [b]etween 10:15 and 10:30,” he was still there. On cross-examination, she testified that, although she had learned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Holbrook v. Burt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • February 27, 2020
    ...Jan. 3, 2017); Hills v. McQuiggin, No. 08-14354, 2012 WL 1079727, *23-24 (E.D. Mich. March 30, 2012)); see also Robins v. Fortner, 698 F.3d 317, 337-38 (6th Cir. 2012) (no ineffectiveness because counsel "may have ... made a tactical choice not to provide curative jury instructions to avoid......
  • Wycuff v. Haviland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • February 3, 2020
    ...simply wanted to get past the prior convictions as quickly as possible without bringing undue attention to them"); Robins v. Fortner, 698 F.3d 317, 337-338 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding no ineffectiveness because counsel "may have . . . made a tactical choice not to provide curative jury instruc......
  • Johnson v. Bobby
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • December 28, 2021
    ...is therefore highly deferential-and doubly deferential when it is conducted through the lens of federal habeas.”); Robins v. Fortner, 698 F.3d 317, 329 (6th Cir. 2012) (“The ‘pivotal question' for us on appeal, however, is ‘whether the state court's application of the Strickland standard wa......
  • Braden v. Bagley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • November 21, 2020
    ...one of the challenged testimonies either did not constitute hearsay or fell within a hearsay exception. See, e.g., Robins v. Fortner, 698 F.3d 317, 335-36 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding that although counsel could have been more vigilant during testimony of witness who related hearsay, review of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...counsel failed to challenge possibly inadequate search warrant because unlikely suppression would have been granted); Robins v. Fortner, 698 F.3d 317, 333 (6th Cir. 2012) (ineffective assistance claim not granted when counsel waited until eve of trial to f‌ile suppression motion because no ......

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