Allen v. Sec'y

• Decision Date: 14 July 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09-13217.,09-13217.
• Citation: 611 F.3d 740
• Parties: Lloyd Chase ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant,v.SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Walter A. McNeil, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

611 F.3d 740

Lloyd Chase ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant,v.SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Walter A. McNeil, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-13217.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

July 14, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Terri Lynn Backhus (Court-Appointed), Backhus & Izakowitz, P.A., Tampa, FL, Leor Veleanu and William M. Hennis, III (Court--Appointed), Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Allen.

Sandra Sue Jaggard, Miami, FL, for McNeil.

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

Before CARNES, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

CARNES, Circuit Judge:

In November of 1991 Dortha Cribbs left her home in Ohio to drive to Florida to sell a trailer and get her vacation home down there ready to sell. Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 323, 325 (Fla.1995) (“ Allen I”). The year before, Lloyd Allen Chase had escaped from a prison work release program in Kansas and headed east. Id. at 327, 331. Unfortunately for Cribbs, their paths crossed at a truck stop in Atlanta, where they struck up a relationship. Id. at 325-26. Their relationship ended when Allen stabbed Cribbs to death and stole her car in Summerland Key, Florida on November 13, 1991. Id. at 325-27.

Allen was arrested in California three months later and brought back to Florida. During his first meeting with his appointed attorney, Allen set out the terms of their relationship. He said it was going to be “a Frank Sinatra case,” by which he meant they were going to conduct the case the way he wanted. Cf. Frank Sinatra My Way (Reprise Records 1969). He told the attorney that “from start to finish on my case we [are] going to do it my way; not the way [you] thought or the way [the prosecutors] thought, we will do it my way because it is my case.” In the words of the song that served as his inspiration, Allen “planned each charted course, each careful step along the byway” of the defense, and when done he could say that he “saw it through without exemption,” and “I faced it all and I stood tall and did it my way.” Id. After he was convicted Allen insisted on his right to represent himself before the jury at sentencing, where he told the jurors “[t]his is my trial and at this time we can do it my way,” and “there is not going to be any excuses today and there will not be any mitigating factors here,” and urged the jury to impose a death sentence. The jury voted 11 to 1 to recommend the sentence he wanted, and the judge gave it to him, letting him “face the final curtain,” id., on his own terms. Allen I, 662 So.2d at 327.

After Allen was sentenced to death, however, he changed his tune. He no longer wants to boast about doing things his way. Instead, he wants to shift the blame for his death sentence to his trial counsel on several grounds, including the fact that counsel followed Allen's orders not to investigate mitigating circumstances or attempt to put on any evidence of them during the sentence proceedings.

The convictions and sentences occurred in 1993. Over the course of the next fourteen years, they were affirmed, state collateral relief was denied, and the denial of it was affirmed in the Florida courts. See Allen v. State, 957 So.2d 635 (Fla.2007) (“ Allen III”); Allen v. State, 854 So.2d 1255 (Fla.2003) (“ Allen II”); Allen I, 662 So.2d 323; Florida v. Allen, No. 92-30056-CF (Fla.Cir.Ct. Dec. 18, 2001). A recounting of the facts, evidence, and procedural history of the case is contained in those opinions and in the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, denying Allen's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Allen v. McNeil, No. 03-10077, 2009 WL 856017 (S.D.Fla. Mar. 31, 2009).

After denying Allen's habeas petition, the district court granted a certificate of appealability as to the Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel issues that Allen had raised in that court.

I. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a federal court may not grant Allen habeas relief unless the state court's decision was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) ... based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Hammond v. Hall, 586 F.3d 1289, 1306 (11th Cir.2009); LeCroy v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 421 F.3d 1237, 1259 (11th Cir.2005). “We review de novo the district court's decision about whether the state court acted contrary to clearly established federal law, unreasonably applied federal law, or made an unreasonable determination of fact.” Smith v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 572 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir.2009).

“A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if it applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases or confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to the Court's.” Windom v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 578 F.3d 1227, 1247 (11th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (quotation and other marks omitted). A state court decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law when “it identifies the correct legal rule from Supreme Court case law but unreasonably applies that rule to the facts of the petitioner's case.” Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1241 (11th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).

“In cases where an applicant for federal habeas relief is not barred from obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), the decision to grant such a hearing rests in the discretion of the district court.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 468, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 1937, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007). The Supreme Court has instructed us that where there is no § 2254(e)(2) bar, “[i]n deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” Id. at 474, 127 S.Ct. at 1940; see also Boyd v. Allen, 592 F.3d 1274, 1304-05 (11th Cir.2010); Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 715 n. 6 (11th Cir.2002); Diaz v. United States, 930 F.2d 832, 834 (11th Cir.1991); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), (e)(1).

A district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if the claims “are merely conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics,” Boyd, 592 F.3d at 1305 (quotation marks omitted), or “if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief,” Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474, 127 S.Ct. at 1940. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[b]ecause the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must take into account those standards in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.” Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474, 127 S.Ct. at 1940.

II. ALLEN'S BRADY CLAIMS

In Brady v. Maryland the Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused ... violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). A Brady violation has three components: “[1] The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2] that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and [3] prejudice must have ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1948, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). The prejudice or materiality requirement is satisfied if “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (quotation marks omitted); see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1565, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). Materiality is determined by asking whether the government's evidentiary suppressions, viewed cumulatively, undermine confidence in the guilty verdict. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434, 436-37 & n. 10, 115 S.Ct. at 1566-67 & n. 10; see also Hammond, 586 F.3d at 1305-06; Smith, 572 F.3d at 1334.

Allen's Brady claims are based on allegations that the State withheld Florida Department of Law Enforcement laboratory reports indicating that: (1) two hairs found in or on Cribbs' hand did not match Allen's hair; (2) hair samples taken from Cribbs for comparison purposes were contaminated and could not be tested; and (3) none of the latent fingerprints recovered from Cribbs' car matched Allen's prints. The Florida Supreme Court denied Allen's Brady claims, determining that he was not prejudiced by the withholding of those reports. See Allen II, 854 So.2d at 1258-60.

With regard to the report about the two hairs found in or on Cribbs' hand, the Florida Supreme Court explained that: “[a]lthough the hair analysis excluded Allen as the source, it did not exclude the victim; and due to contamination, the two hairs cannot be examined further. Thus, the analysis neither supported nor negated Allen's argument that an unidentified third person committed the murder.” Allen II, 854 So.2d at 1260. The court summarily rejected the other two Brady allegations, finding that they “lack merit because Allen was not prejudiced by [those and other] alleged errors.” Id. at 1258 n. 5. The reasoning behind the summary rejection of those two other Brady claims is not difficult to discern. Having a report indicating that some potential evidence, which was not introduced at trial, was too contaminated to use does not indicate that but for the contamination it would have implicated someone else in the crime. While Allen argues that he could have used the fact that...