Atkins v. Polk
Decision Date | 16 August 2011 |
Docket Number | CIVIL CASE NO. 1:06cv372 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
Parties | RANDY LYNN ATKINS, Petitioner, v. MARVIN POLK, Warden, Central Prison Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent. |
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner Randy Lynn Atkins's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. 10]. Also before the Court are Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19] and Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 28].
On April 12, 1993, Petitioner was indicted for first degree sexual offense and for the first-degree murder of his eight-month-old son, Lyle James Atkins. State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 73, 505 S.E.2d 97, 104 (1998). On November 18, 1993, Petitioner pled guilty to first-degree murder in exchange for the dismissal of the sexual offense charge and an agreement by the State not to submit any evidence at sentencing pertaining to the sexual offense charge or to any other sexual offenses purportedly committed by Petitioner. Id. at 73, 505 S.E.2d at 104-05. Following acceptance and entry of Petitioner's guilty plea, a capital sentencing hearing was conducted during the November 29, 1993 Criminal Session of the Superior Court for Buncombe County, before the Honorable Chase Saunders. Id. at 74, 505 S.E.2d at 105. Petitioner was represented by William Auman and Curtiss Graham, both Buncombe County Assistant Public Defenders.
The facts of this case are summarized in the North Carolina Supreme Court's opinion on Petitioner's direct appeal:
Id. at 73-74, 505 S.E.2d at 105.
During the capital sentencing proceeding, the State presented evidence in support of one of the statutory aggravating circumstances, namely, that the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." SeeN.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(e)(9). The State Supreme Court summarized the State's evidence as follows:
An experienced pediatric radiologist testified at the sentencing proceeding concerning the extent of injuries suffered by Lyle. The testimony indicated that the eight-month-old infant exhibited the following injuries upon admission to Mission Memorial Hospital on 16 March 1993: healing fracture of the right clavicle, healing bone along the midshaft of the right upper arm, extensive injury of the left upper arm, dislocation of the left elbow, healing bone indicative of a fracture of the right hip, skull fractures and bruising on both the left and right sides, and a compression fracture of the spine. Further testimony indicated that the injuries occurred in at least two episodes of injury to Lyle. The pediatric radiologist estimated that the time of the origin of injuries ranged from four weeks prior to the hospital admission up to within a day of the admission. Several treating physicians also testified at the sentencing proceeding that Lyle exhibited symptoms of "battered child syndrome." The State presented expert testimony by Dr. Cynthia Brown, a pediatrician, who defined a "battered child" as a "child that presents with multiple purposely inflicted injuries that are of varying ages."
Atkins, 349 N.C. at 74-75, 505 S.E.2d at 105-06.
With respect to Petitioner's mental health, evidence was presented during the sentencing phase that in April 1993, Dr. Clabe Lynn diagnosed Petitioner as having a personality disorder and adjustment disorder with a mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. Id. at 75, 505 S.E.2d at 106.There was also testimony presented from Dr. Joseph Horacek, who testified that it was his opinion that Petitioner suffered from a disassociative identity disorder, also known as multiple personality disorder, as well as an attention deficit disorder. Dr. Horacek also opined that Petitioner exhibited a "learning disability profile." Id. at 87, 505 S.E.2d at 113.
In all, Petitioner presented evidence of twenty-five potential mitigating circumstances in addition to the statutory "catchall" mitigating circumstance, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(f)(9). The jury rejected all of these potential mitigating circumstances except for two, finding that (1) "the Defendant qualifies as having a learning disability due to his IQ variations," and (2) "the Defendant was diagnosed by Dr. Clabe Lynn in April of 1993 as having a personality disorder and adjustment disorder with a mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct." Atkins, 349 N.C. at 75, 505 S.E.2d at 106. On December 8, 1993, the jury unanimously recommended that Petitioner be sentenced to death. Id.
In recounting the procedural history of this case, the Court will refer to those records manually submitted by the Respondent as "Resp't Ex. __"and those records manually submitted by the Petitioner as "Pet'r Ex. __." These citations will include a reference to the relevant page number and/or paragraph number, and where necessary, a description of the particular document cited.1
Following entry of judgment and his sentence of death, Petitioner filed an appeal in the North Carolina Supreme Court. During the pendency of that appeal, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief (Pre-Appeal MAR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to take steps to accommodate his hearing impairment during his various state court proceedings. [Resp't Ex. 1 at 265 ¶4]. The North Carolina Supreme Court remanded the Pre-Appeal MAR to the Buncombe County Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing and held Petitioner's appeal in abeyance pending the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings. [Id. at 265 ¶5].
As part of the Pre-Appeal MAR, on October 23, 1996, Petitioner filed a Motion for Discovery in the Buncombe County Superior Court. [Resp'tEx. 1 at 242-43]. On November 21, 1996, the Honorable Ronald K. Payne, Superior Court Judge Presiding, entered an Order granting Petitioner access to various investigative and prosecutorial files related to the case. [Id. at 254-55]. On November 27, 1996, Judge Payne entered an Order requiring the State to produce all work product for an in camera review by the Court. [Id. at 252-53]. On December 11, 1996, Judge Payne entered an Order excluding the material provided for in camera review from discovery and requiring the State to continue to comply with the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). [Id. at 256]. On January 15, 1997, the North Carolina Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari to review Judge Payne's discovery order. [Id. at 259].
An evidentiary hearing was conducted before the Honorable Forrest Ferrell, who issued an Order on May 16, 1997, denying Petitioner relief on his Pre-Appeal MAR. [Id. at 270]. Subsequently, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 505 S.E.2d 97 (1998). Specifically, the North Carolina Supreme Court found no error in Petitioner's trial or in the denial...
To continue reading
Request your trial