Bessette v. Sec'y
| Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 8:12-cv-1707-T-36MAP |
| Court | United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida |
| Parties | ALLIE CHARLES BESSETTE, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
Petitioner Allie Charles Bessette, an inmate in the Florida Department of Corrections proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1). He challenges his convictions entered in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida, in 2006. Respondent filed a response (Dkt. 16), and Bessette filed a reply (Dkt. 25). Bessette also filed a supplement to his reply (Dkt. 26) and a notice of supplemental authority (Dkt. 28). Upon review, the petition must be denied.
Procedural History
Bessette was charged with eight counts; a co-defendant, Joe Johnson, was also charged on counts one through five. Bessette proceeded to a jury trial. Counts seven and eight involved one incident, while counts one through six involved a second incident that occurred a short time later. On count seven, Bessette was convicted of attempted armed burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to thirty years in prison. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 1, Vol. I, p. 170; Vol. II, pp. 235-36.) He was convicted of aggravated assault on count eight and receiveda sentence of fifteen years in prison. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 1, Vol. I, p. 170; Vol. II, pp. 238-39.) On count one, Bessette was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 1, Vol. I, p. 168; Vol. II, pp. 221-22.) On count two, he was convicted of home invasion robbery with a firearm and sentenced to life in prison. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 1, Vol. I, p. 168; Vol. II, pp. 224-25.) On count three, Bessette was convicted of assault on a law enforcement officer, for which he received a sentence of 364 days. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 1, Vol. I, p. 169; Vol. II, p. 227.) With regard to counts four and five, Bessette was convicted of false imprisonment and sentenced to five years in prison. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 1, Vol. I, p. 169; Vol. II, p. 229.) On count six, he was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced to forty years in prison. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 1, Vol. I, p. 170; Vol. II, p.232-33.) Bessette was sentenced as a violent career criminal on counts one, two, six, seven, and eight.
The state appellate court affirmed Bessette's convictions and sentences with a written opinion. Bessette v. State, 975 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). (Dkt. 19, Ex. 4.) His motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied. (Dkt. 19, Exs. 5, 6.) Bessette filed a state habeas petition, asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (Dkt. 19, Ex. 8.) The state appellate court denied the petition without comment. (Dkt. 19, Ex. 9.) Bessette filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 14, Vol. I, pp. 21-98.) The state postconviction court entered an order denying or reserving ruling on several claims and directing the State to respond to the remaining claims. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 14, Vol. II, pp. 110-269.) After the State responded, the postconviction court entered a second order denying or reserving ruling on a number of claims and granting an evidentiary hearing on the remaining claims. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 14, Vol. IV, pp. 407-607.) Following the evidentiary hearing, the state court entered an orderrejecting Bessette's remaining claims. (Dkt. 20, Ex. 14, Vol. VIII, pp. 1288-1402.) The state appellate court per curiam affirmed the postconviction court's orders. (Dkt. 19, Ex. 18.) Bessette's motion for rehearing was denied, and his motion for rehearing en banc was stricken. (Dkt. 19, Exs. 19-21.) Respondent does not contest the timeliness of Bessette's federal habeas petition.
Factual Background1
This case involved two incidents that took place in the early hours of October 22, 2003. The first incident, which led to counts seven and eight, occurred on Saffold Road in Wimauma, Florida. Rita Sanchez testified that she heard footsteps outside of her trailer. When she looked out the window, she saw two men coming towards the door. Sanchez yelled to her son, Jessie Garza, to wake up. Sanchez stated that she went onto the porch and saw a man whose face was covered pointing a gun at her. Garza grabbed her and brought her back inside. As the men tried to force the door open, Garza held the door closed from inside. Sanchez testified that, during the incident, she heard one of the men say "James" or "Johnson." Garza also testified that he heard someone say "Johnson."
Sanchez tried to call 911 but the phone was dead. Garza testified that he believed he heard someone leaving through the back gate. Sanchez and Garza waited for about five minutes and then went to a neighbor's house to call 911. Sanchez's call was received at approximately 12:40 a.m.2 A K-9 unit responded following Sanchez's 911 call, and the dog tracked to a wallet located at the intersection of Saffold Road and River Estates Drive.The wallet contained Bessette's driver's license and credit card.
The second incident, which led to counts one through six, occurred on Balm Riverview Road in Tampa, Florida. Juan Padilla, Maria Martinez, and Padilla's daughter Miriam Sierra were asleep in their trailer. Padilla woke up when he heard noise. He testified that he saw a small truck parked outside and heard banging on the front door. Padilla looked outside and saw a person saying "DEA" and directing him to open the door. Padilla told Martinez to call 911. Padilla testified that he heard a noise from the rear door, and two men carrying guns came inside. Padilla further testified that their faces were covered. One of the men directed Martinez, who had called 911, to hang up the phone. After Sierra came out of her room, one man held Sierra and Martinez at gunpoint while the other man attacked Padilla, hitting him in the head. Padilla testified his assailant took $1,200 from his pocket.
Deputy Charlotte Raschke and other officers arrived in response to Martinez's 911 call. Rashcke testified that when she entered the trailer, she saw Johnson standing over Martinez and Sierra with his gun pointed down at them. After Johnson followed Raschke's instruction to drop the gun, Raschke saw another gun and turned to find Bessette crouching down, pointing a gun at her. When Bessette did not comply with Raschke's instruction to drop the gun, Raschke testified, she fired her weapon. Bessette ran out of the trailer. Raschke, a K-9 unit officer, tracked Bessette with her dog and found him hiding in a swampy area behind the trailer. Along the track, she and other officers noticed cash on the ground. They recovered $1,200.
Bessette's recorded post-arrest statement to police was played at trial. Bessette also testified that he went to the Saffold Road property at approximately 10:30 to 11:00p.m. to try to buy drugs. Bessette stated that he was with Joe Johnson, but that he parked his truck down the street and Johnson stayed in the truck. Bessette testified that after he knocked on the trailer door, he heard voices inside the trailer but no one opened the door. Bessette testified that they left and drove to an acquaintance's residence before proceeding to the Balm Riverview Road property. There, he parked his truck in front of the trailer. Bessette testified that he intended to buy drugs and had about $1,500. He stated that after a woman allowed Bessette and Johnson inside the trailer, they began to argue with Padilla about money. He stated that Padilla produced a firearm, and that they fought over it until a short time before law enforcement's arrival.
Standard Of Review
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") governs this proceeding. Wilcox v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 158 F.3d 1209, 1210 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 (2000). Habeas relief can only be granted if a petitioner is in custody "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Section 2254(d), which sets forth a highly deferential standard for federal court review of a state court adjudication, states in pertinent part:
In Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000), the Supreme Court interpreted thisdeferential 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial