Anderson v. Superintendent, Colette Goguen
| Decision Date | 11 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 18-40107-TSH,Civil Action No. 18-40107-TSH |
| Citation | 590 F.Supp.3d 374 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
| Parties | Terrence ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, COLETTE GOGUEN, NCCI-GARDNER, Respondent. |
Terrence Anderson (“Anderson” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody (Docket No 1)(“Petition”) against Colette Goguen Superintendent, North Central Correctional Institution Gardner, MA (“Respondent”). Petitioner was convicted in Massachusetts Superior Court of three counts of rape of a child and sentenced to 3-5 years of incarceration followed by 10 years of probation[1].
He asserts the following three grounds for relief:
On November 14, 2012, a Suffolk County grand jury returned an indictment charging petitioner with three counts of rape of a child, pursuant to Mass.Gen.L. ch. 265, § 23. The case initially went to trial on June 19, 2014, but on June 25, 2014, the court declared a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury. The Petitioner was retried in the Suffolk County Superior Court in August 2014; on August 13, 2014, the jury found the Petitioner guilty on all three counts. That same day, Petitioner was sentenced to three to five years' incarceration on Count One, and ten years of probation on Counts Two and Three, to be served concurrent with each other and after the sentence on Count One. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal with the Massachusetts Appeals Court (“MAC”) on September 11, 2014. On December 20, 2016, Petitioner moved that the execution of the remainder of his sentence be stayed pending the disposition of his appeal. That motion was denied without prejudice, and a renewed motion was denied on June 1, 2017. The MAC affirmed the judgments on November 6, 2017. See Commonwealth v. Anderson, 92 Mass.App.Ct. 1113 (2017).
On March 6, 2018, Petitioner filed an application for further appellate review (“ALOFAR”) in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”). The SJC denied further appellate review on May 4, 2018. See Commonwealth v. Anderson, 479 Mass. 1105 (2018). On June 25, 2018, Petitioner timely filed his Petition in this Court asserting the three fully exhausted grounds for relief listed above.
The victim was thirty-one years old when she testified in August of 2014. She had grown up in Dorchester with her mother, stepfather, and four siblings. When she was fifteen years old, she moved to North Carolina. While the victim was growing up, her extended family would often have family gatherings. Among her father's family was the Petitioner, her father's cousin, whom she referred to as her uncle. The victim first started noticing the Petitioner visiting her home when she was nine or ten. She recalled that during at this time, he would have her sit on his lap while he was rubbing her leg and kissing her neck. She recalled one instance where she sat between his legs and “felt something hard” on her behind, which “stood out” because the other men in her life did not touch her like that. The victim described incidents beginning when she was eleven years old where the Petitioner would always kiss and hug her. He would take her hand and put it on his erect penis when no one else was around and tell her that she was beautiful and that he loved her. He would also give her money either before or after he would touch her. The victim remembered one incident at a family gathering, when she was twelve years old, where the Petitioner met her at the top of the second-floor stairway in front of her parents' room. He grabbed her face and put his tongue in her mouth and took her hand and put it down his pants on his erect penis. The victim recalled the Petitioner's pressing his penis against her back, rubbing her hair, grabbing her face, and putting his tongue in her mouth. The next day he called her and asked her, “Did you tell anybody what happened last night?” When she said she no, he replied, The victim described other incidents that occurred at her house, such as when she was twelve years old, the Petitioner would come over in his car, she would get in his car, and he would take her hand, put it on his erect penis, and have her masturbate him.
When the victim was thirteen years old, she and a friend went to the train station after “Step” practice to try and get home, but they were short on money. They had enough money to reach the train station that was closer to the Petitioner's house in Roslindale but not enough to reach the station closest to where they lived. The victim called the Petitioner, and they took the train to the station closer to where Petitioner lived and walked from the train station to his house. When they arrived at the Petitioner's house, he was the only person home. He went upstairs while the two girls sat on the couch in the living room. The Petitioner called for the victim to come upstairs, and when she reached the top of the stairs, he directed her into a bedroom with his hand. He then pulled his pants down, pulled her pants down, pulled down her underwear, and put her on the bed. He then performed oral sex on her, swung her around, and put his penis in her mouth. He took her head and pushed it towards his penis, and he shoved his penis in her mouth. Petitioner then got on top of her on the bed, put his penis into her vagina, ejaculated on her stomach and told her he loved her. When asked how long she thought she was upstairs, the victim was not sure of the time frame, but stated it felt like a long time. The victim put on her clothes and went downstairs. When the Petitioner came downstairs, he gave her twenty dollars, and she left with her friend. Around the time that this happened, the Petitioner called the victim on her phone and told her that he looked at her like a woman, that he wished he could be with her, that she was “so beautiful, ” and that he loved her.[2]
The victim also recalled an incident in the Petitioner's car that occurred when she was fourteen years old, in which he exposed his penis and told her to “lick it or kiss it.” During this incident, the outside of her mouth touched his penis while his hands were on her buttocks. The Petitioner would also show the victim pornography. One time in front of her house, while they were in his car, Petitioner showed her a pornographic magazine and had her touch his erect penis over his clothing. The victim recalled another instance at the Petitioner's house, where he showed her a tape of a woman and a man having sex on the TV.
Petitioner was not charged in connection with all of the incidents to which the victim testified. During the victim's testimony, the judge gave a comprehensive instruction regarding the limited purpose of any evidence regarding uncharged conduct.
Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the MAC raising the following claims for relief: (1) his rights to due process and a fair trial were violated because the trial court allowed voluminous amounts of improper, prejudicial evidence to be presented to the jury, including permitting the victim to testify as to uncharged conduct (prior bad acts of the Petitioner) and to use the terms “rape” and “raped”, and permitted the prosecution to refer to him as “Uncle Terrence”, (2) it was prejudicial error to permit the victim's husband to be the first complaint witness without conducting a voir dire to determine whether the victim first disclosed the abuse to two other relatives (as stated in the police report); (3) the trial court erred by refusing to declare a mistrial when in response to repeated questions by defense counsel regarding why she needed money on the day of the charged rape, the victim told her she should ask Petitioner when he testified; (4) the prosecutor committed prejudicial error in her closing statement; (5) his defense attorney provided ineffective assistance where she failed to prepare adequately for trial, was reprimanded by the judge for her lack of preparation, and made several unreasonable tactical decisions; and (6) the cumulative effect of the above-listed errors required the reversal of his convictions.
In affirming Anderson's conviction, the MAC made the following rulings relevant to the grounds for relief raised in his Petition:
To continue reading
Request your trial