Andrews v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

• Docket Number: 8:20-cv-1234-SDM-UAM
• Decision Date: 07 August 2023
• Parties: ANTONIO T. ANDREWS, Applicant, v. SECRETARY, Department of Corrections, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

1

ANTONIO T. ANDREWS, Applicant, v. SECRETARY, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 8:20-cv-1234-SDM-UAM

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

August 7, 2023

ORDER

STEVEN D. MERRYDAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Andrews applies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for the writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) and challenges his convictions for driving with a restricted license, armed trafficking in cocaine possession of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Andrews is imprisoned for ten years. Numerous exhibits (“Respondent's Exhibit ___”) support the response. (Doc. 20-2) An earlier order determines that the application is timely. (Doc. 19) The application asserts one ground for relief, which the respondent argues is both procedurally defaulted and meritless.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

On the afternoon of August 7, 2015, Officers Eric Mathers and Preston Hale were patrolling Lakeland, Florida, in an unmarked police vehicle. They observed a green Toyota sedan drive past the “stop bar” at an intersection. (Respondent's Exhibit 32 at 190-91) The driver spotted the police vehicle and slammed on the brakes. As the officers drove past the vehicle, they saw the driver “slouch down and to the left,” and they detected “a strong odor of fresh marijuana.” (Id. at 192-93) The officers turned around and followed the vehicle through the intersection.

After traveling approximately three blocks, the officers activated their emergency lights and siren. The Toyota sedan pulled into a driveway. The driver, later identified as Andrews, exited the car and began talking into a cellphone. Officer Hale approached Andrews and told him to stop. Andrews complied. Officer Hale looked through the driver's side window of the vehicle and saw a baggie of marijuana in the center console. He also detected the odor of marijuana. Officer Hale informed Andrews that Officer Mathers and he would be searching the car. Andrews said he did not want the officers to search, and he offered to “recover the cannabis” for them. (Id. at 255)

Officer Hale declined the offer and walked Andrews back to the police vehicle. Meanwhile, Officers Mathers began searching the car. He retrieved the baggie of marijuana and discovered a .380 caliber firearm “sitting in the cupholder area” within arm's reach of the driver. (Id. at 201) Officer Mathers also found a bookbag on the front passenger floorboard. The bookbag contained 31.20 grams of cocaine and 930.40 grams of marijuana.

Officer Hale searched Andrews and found approximately $3,000 in cash in Andrews's right front pocket. Andrews asked whether he “could just pay” the officers to “get out of this.” (Id. at 259) Officer Hale refused the bribe and placed Andrews in the police cruiser.

On August 21, 2015, Andrews was charged with one count of driving on a restricted license, one count of armed trafficking in cocaine (28 grams or more), one count of possession of cannabis (over 20 grams), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) Six months after the information was filed, Andrews moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the vehicle and argued that the “pursuit, detaining, and search” were “performed without adequate probable cause.” (Respondent's Exhibit 24 at 2) The motion was set for a hearing, which was continued because of the trial court's heavy caseload. (Respondent's Exhibit 25 at 56) The hearing was continued a second time to allow Andrews's counsel to review the officers' deposition transcripts. (Respondent's Exhibit 26 at 5-6, 10)

Shortly after the second continuance, Andrews's counsel moved to withdraw and cited “[i]rreconcilable differences” between his client and him. (Respondent's Exhibit 27) The trial court granted the motion. (Respondent's Exhibit 28) Andrews filed a pro se motion to dismiss and contended that he “was illegally detained and his person searched” “without adequate probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” (Respondent's Exhibit 29) One week later, replacement counsel was appointed to represent Andrews. At a subsequent pretrial hearing, Andrews's counsel withdrew the pro se motion to dismiss. (Respondent's Exhibit 31)

The case proceeded to trial. Before the jury was sworn, the court asked counsel whether “[a]nything else” needed to be addressed. (Respondent's Exhibit 32 at 150) The prosecutor indicated that the court needed to rule on two outstanding motions in limine. Neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel mentioned the motion to suppress, and the evidence recovered from the car was introduced at trial without objection. Andrews testified (1) that the drugs, the bookbag, and the gun did not belong to him, (2) that he did not notice those items when he entered the car because he was five hours late for work and “rushing,” and (3) that he offered to bribe the officers because he “was terrified of jail” and “felt like [he] was being discriminated against.” (Id. at 367-73) The jury convicted Andrews on all counts, and the trial court sentenced him to a total term of ten years' imprisonment.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) governs this proceeding. Wilcox v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 158 F.3d 1209, 1210 (11th Cir. 1998). Section 2254(d), which creates a highly deferential standard for federal court review of a state court adjudication, states in pertinent part:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000), explains this deferential standard:

In sum, § 2254(d)(1) places a new constraint on the power of a federal habeas court to grant a state prisoner's application for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to claims adjudicated on the merits in state court. Under § 2254(d)(1), the writ may issue only if one of the following two conditions is satisfied - the state court adjudication resulted in a decision that (1) “was contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or (2) “involved an unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.

“The focus . . . is on whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable[;] . . . an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693 (2002). “As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 427 (2014) (“The critical point is that relief is available under § 2254(d)(1)'s unreasonable-application clause if, and only if, it is so obvious that a clearly established rule applies to a given set of facts that there could be no fairminded disagreement on the question ....”); Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015) (“And an ‘unreasonable application of' those holdings must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even clear error will not suffice.”) (citing Woodall, 572 U.S. at 419). Accord Brown v. Head, 272 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001) (“It is the objective reasonableness, not the correctness per se, of the state court decision that we are to decide.”). The phrase “clearly established Federal law” encompasses only the holdings of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 412.

The purpose of federal review is not to re-try the state case. “[AEDPA] modified a federal habeas court's role in reviewing state prisoner applications in order to prevent federal habeas ‘retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law.” Bell, 535 U.S. at 694. A federal court must afford due deference to a state court's decision. “AEDPA prevents defendants - and federal courts - from using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 779 (2010). See also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (“This is a ‘difficult to meet,' . . . and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt' ....”) (citations omitted).

When the last state court to decide a federal claim explains its decision in a reasoned opinion, a federal habeas cour...