Baggett v. Keller

• Citation: 796 F.Supp.2d 718
• Decision Date: 01 July 2011
• Docket Number: 5:10–HC–2228–D,5:10–HC–2230–D.,Nos. 5:10–HC–2226–D,5:10–HC–2227–D,s. 5:10–HC–2226–D
• Parties: William BAGGETT, Petitioner, v. Alvin W. KELLER, Jr., Secretary, Department of Correction, and Joseph Hall, Administrator, Harnett Correctional Institution, Respondents.James Powell, Petitioner, v. Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Secretary, Department of Correction, and Sandra Thomas, Administrator, Lumberton Correctional Institution, Respondents.Leroy Richardson, Petitioner, v. Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Secretary, Department of Correction, and Herbert Jackson, Administrator, Brown Creek Correctional Institution, Respondents.Joseph Seaborn, Petitioner, v. Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Secretary, Department of Correction, and Oliver Washington, Administrator, Tillery Correctional Center, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina

796 F.Supp.2d 718

William BAGGETT, Petitioner,

v.Alvin W. KELLER, Jr., Secretary, Department of Correction, and Joseph Hall, Administrator, Harnett Correctional Institution, Respondents.James Powell, Petitioner,

v.Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Secretary, Department of Correction, and Sandra Thomas, Administrator, Lumberton Correctional Institution, Respondents.Leroy Richardson, Petitioner,

v.Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Secretary, Department of Correction, and Herbert Jackson, Administrator, Brown Creek Correctional Institution, Respondents.Joseph Seaborn, Petitioner,

v.Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Secretary, Department of Correction, and Oliver Washington, Administrator, Tillery Correctional Center, Respondents.

Nos. 5:10–HC–2226–D

5:10–HC–2227–D

5:10–HC–2228–D

5:10–HC–2230–D.

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina,Western Division.

July 1, 2011.

Sarah Jessica Farber, Mary Sheehan Pollard, Vernetta R. Alston, Raleigh, NC, for Petitioner.

Clarence J. Delforge, III, N.C. Dept. of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Respondent Alvin W. Keller, Jr.

ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER III, District Judge.

Petitioners are state inmates serving life sentences imposed between April 8, 1974, and June 30, 1978, pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–2 (1974). ¹ Petitioners contend that they have accrued sufficient good time, gain time, and merit time to entitle them to unconditional release and that North Carolina's failure to release them violates the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of North Carolina rejected their claims, and petitioners now seek writs of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Respondents have answered the petitions, denied that petitioners are in custody in violation of the United States Constitution, and filed motions for summary judgment.² Petitioners filed responses in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, and respondents filed replies.³

Petitioners also have filed motions to consolidate these cases, which respondents do not oppose. The parties describe these cases as “legally identical[,]” and all parties agree that consolidation of these cases promotes judicial economy. See Mots. Consolidate 1; Resps. Mots. Consolidate 1. On June 28, 2011, the clerk reassigned the Baggett, Powell, and Richardson cases to the undersigned. Accordingly, the court grants the motions to consolidate.

In resolving the pending motions for summary judgment, the court applies the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). The AEDPA mandates that federal courts apply a deferential standard of review when considering a state prisoner's habeas petition challenging a state court's analysis of a constitutional challenge to a state-court conviction or sentence. Congress enacted the AEDPA after carefully balancing comity, federalism, and the traditional role of the writ of habeas corpus, which serves as a safeguard against imprisonment of those held in violation of federal law. In striking this balance, the AEDPA recognizes that “[f]ederal habeas review of state convictions [or sentences] frustrates both the States' sovereign power to punish offenders and their good-faith attempts to honor constitutional rights.” Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 555–56, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998) (quotation omitted.). As explained below, when this court applies the AEDPA to the North Carolina Supreme Court's application of Jones v. Keller, 364 N.C. 249, 698 S.E.2d 49 (2010), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2150, 179 L.Ed.2d 935 (2011), to these petitioners, the court concludes that the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision is not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States or an unreasonable determination of the facts. Accordingly, the court grants the motions for summary judgment, dismisses the petitions for writs of habeas corpus, and denies the requests for evidentiary hearings.

I.

Before turning to the merits, the court briefly recites the crimes which produced each petitioner's conviction and sentence.

On the night of October 24, 1976, William Deems Baggett drank a pint of liquor and fought with his wife, then drove himself and several friends to “a combination poolroom and dance hall” just outside Salemburg, North Carolina. State v. Baggett, 293 N.C. 307, 308, 237 S.E.2d 827, 827–28 (1977). Baggett was carrying “a silver-colored .22 caliber pistol” and had a shotgun in his car. Id. at 308, 237 S.E.2d at 828. Upon entering the poolroom, James Dee Williams approached Baggett several times, and claimed that he knew Baggett. Id. “The fourth time Williams approached, [Baggett] struck him in the mouth.” Id. Baggett then shot Williams four times with the .22 caliber pistol, “smiled, and ran from the poolroom. When outside [Baggett] went to his car, pulled out the shotgun, fired once into the air, and drove off.” Id. Williams “was unarmed, did not curse or touch defendant, and offered no resistance. He died from internal hemorrhaging as a result of the gunshot wounds.” Id. A jury convicted Baggett of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–2 (1974). Id. at 307, 237 S.E.2d at 827. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Baggett's conviction and sentence. Id. at 311–12, 237 S.E.2d at 830.

Sometime between Friday, April 14, 1978, and Monday, April 17, 1978, James Alonzo Powell raped, strangled to death, and stabbed Martha Gilchrist Walker, a 69 year old woman who lived alone in Fayetteville, North Carolina. State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 96–97, 261 S.E.2d 114, 116 (1980). Powell stole Walker's car and a small Sony television and on the morning of Saturday, April 15, 1978, drove the car to his cousin's home in Fayetteville, where he gave the television to another cousin. Id. A jury convicted Powell of first-degree murder, first-degree rape, and robbery with a dangerous weapon, and the trial court sentenced Powell to life imprisonment pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–2 (1974). Id. at 96, 261 S.E.2d at 115–16. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Powell's convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree rape and life sentence, but vacated his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, because “[t]he arrangement of the victim's body and the physical evidence indicate[d] she was murdered during an act of rape” and the State's evidence “indicate[d] only that defendant took the objects as an afterthought once the victim had died.” Id. at 102, 261 S.E.2d at 119.

On the morning of December 13, 1974, LeRoy Richardson, along with two co-defendants, walked into a store in Robeson County, North Carolina, asked Coreene Jacobs for a pack of cigarettes, and then grabbed Jacobs and said, “I want all of your money and your life.” State v. Covington, 290 N.C. 313, 319–20, 226 S.E.2d 629, 635–36 (1976). Richardson removed money from the cash register, then took a butcher knife and stabbed Jacobs in the neck. Id. Richardson also stabbed Joseph Maxwell Cook, a customer. Id. Cook died as a result of the attack. Id. A jury convicted Richardson of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to death. Id. at 347–48, 226 S.E.2d at 652. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Richardson's conviction, but, in light of Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976), reduced the sentence to life imprisonment pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–2 (1974). Covington, 290 N.C. at 347–48, 226 S.E.2d at 652.

On September 2, 1975, Seaborn, armed with a sawed-off shotgun and with the assistance of two co-defendants, robbed a bank in Jamesville, North Carolina. State v. Squire, 292 N.C. 494, 496–99, 234 S.E.2d 563, 564–66 (1977). The three fled the scene in a car Seaborn had borrowed that morning. Id. A state highway patrolman (Trooper Davis) stopped the car, and, as he approached the car, Seaborn (who was lying down in the back seat) arose and shot Trooper Davis in the throat, killing him. Id. A jury convicted Seaborn of first-degree felony murder, and the trial court sentenced him to death. Id. at 500–02, 234 S.E.2d at 567. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Seaborn's conviction, but, in light of Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976), reduced the sentence to life imprisonment pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–2 (1974). Squire, 292 N.C. at 513, 234 S.E.2d at 574.

Petitioners argue that since their periods of incarceration began, the North Carolina Department of Correction (“DOC”) has awarded them certain good time, gain time, and merit time thereby entitling them to unconditional release. See Baggett Pet. ¶ 108; Powell Pet. ¶ 102; Richardson Pet. ¶ 108; Seaborn Pet. ¶ 108. Petitioners also contend that DOC's failure to release them violates their rights under the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution. Respondents disagree with petitioners' interpretation of the facts, North Carolina law, and the United States Constitution.

In order to understand these petitions, the court begins with Bobby Bowden, another state inmate sentenced to life imprisonment under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–2(1974). On December 12, 2005, Bowden filed a state habeas petition challenging DOC's refusal to apply sentence reduction credits towards an immediate release date. State v. Bowden, 193 N.C.App. 597, 598, 668 S.E.2d 107, 108 (2008). Bowden, like petitioners, is serving a sentence of life imprisonment under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–2 (1974). In Bowden's state habeas petition, Bowden argued that as a matter of state law his sentence of life imprisonment really was an 80–year sentence. Moreover, he argued that, after applying all sentence reduction credits, he had completed his 80–year sentence and was entitled to immediate release. The state trial court held that N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–2(1974) requires DOC to treat Bowden's life...