Bianchi v. Medeiros
| Decision Date | 25 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 16-11330-FDS |
| Parties | ROBERT BIANCHI, Petitioner, v. SEAN MEDEIROS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
This is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 2, 1995, a jury in Suffolk County Superior Court convicted petitioner Robert Bianchi of charges of first-degree murder and violating a protective order. He was sentenced to life in prison. The habeas petition alleges (1) that his right to an open trial was violated by the closure of empanelment proceedings; (2) that his right to a fair trial was violated by the court's order requiring him to face forward at all times; (3) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) that the court erred in excluding certain evidence demonstrating his state of mind at the time of the murder.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be granted.
In Commonwealth v. Bianchi, 435 Mass. 316, 317 (2001), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court summarized the murder of Donna Bianchi as follows:
On May 2, 1995, a jury convicted Bianchi of first-degree murder, under the theories of deliberate premeditation with malice aforethought and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and of violating a protective order. . He was sentenced to a term of life in prison. (Pet. Ex. A).
Following his conviction, Bianchi filed a timely notice of appeal and a motion for a new trial. (Commonwealth v. Bianchi, 435 Mass. at 316). The appeal was stayed pending resolution of the motion for a new trial, which was eventually denied on March 31, 2000. (Pet. Ex. A).
On November 10, 2000, Bianchi wrote his appellate attorney, Dana Curhan, urging him to include a claim concerning the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, Robert George, as a basis for the appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC"). (Pet. Ex. B).
On November 9, 2001, the SJC affirmed Bianchi's conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial. (Commonwealth v. Bianchi, 435 Mass. at 330). The SJC did not consider any claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. at 322-30). Bianchi did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
On November 13, 2001, Bianchi wrote a letter to Donald Bronstein at the Committee for Public Counsel Services ("CPCS"). The letter requested that Bronstein be appointed a screener or other counsel for proceedings concerning post-conviction relief based on the fact that Curhanhad failed to present the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (Pet. Ex. C). CPCS denied that request. (Pet. Ex. JJJJ ¶ 2).
Bianchi contends that in December 2001 he "began the long and arduous process of assembling any mat[]erials that could aid [him] in researching [his] own case." (Id. ¶ 3). He alleges that by September or October 2002, he was prepared to file a motion for a new trial pro se under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b), but before doing so, he telephoned CPCS in another attempt to obtain counsel or a screener. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6).
Bianchi alleges that he informed an unnamed person at that office that he was concerned about losing his "appellate rights in federal court." (Id. ¶ 6). He alleges that the person advised him to file a motion for reduction of verdict or new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2) instead of the Rule 30(b) motion. (Id. ¶ 7). He further alleges that he was advised to file nothing but the Rule 25 motion, to reserve his right to amend the motion at a later date, and to request that the reviewing court not construe the motion as a Rule 30 motion. (Id.). He was told that if he filed a Rule 30(b) motion that was immediately denied, he would have "greater difficulty in filing any subsequent Rule 30 motions." (Id. ¶ 6).
On October 20, 2002, Bianchi filed a pro se motion for reduction in verdict or new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2). (Pet. Ex. X, Pet. Ex. JJJJ ¶ 54). The motion consists of a single page. It appears to be a form document on which Bianchi filled in blanks, including his crime, the court that convicted him, and his name. (Pet. Ex. H). The motion provided as reasons for its allowance "that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that there was insufficient evidence of first degree murder." (Id.). It did not include any legal argument or evidence in support of that claim. It further stated that "[t]he defendant respectfully requests that the Court hold this motion in abeyance while he attempts to obtain counsel" and that he "doesnot wish this motion to be construed as a motion pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30." (Id.) (emphasis in original). The parties agree that the state court has never taken any action on the Rule 25 motion. (Resp. Mem. at 2; Pet. Mem. at 2).
On November 21, 2002, CPCS assigned attorney James Couture to Bianchi's case. (Pet. Ex. J). In early 2003, Bianchi mailed various materials and his trial transcripts to Couture for review. (Pet. Ex. JJJJ ¶ 12). After a period of time, Bianchi contacted CPCS; he alleges that he was informed that Couture had the matter in hand, and that the Rule 25 motion would "hold the flood gates" for further appeal. (Id. ¶ 13). In late 2003, he began to grow concerned because he had not heard from Couture for some time. (Id. ¶ 16). In May or June 2004, he became sufficiently worried about the lack of communication that he planned to file his own Rule 30(b) motion, but was again allegedly assured by someone at CPCS that Couture "had the matter under control." (Id. ¶ 17). Despite those reassurances, Bianchi began conducting his own factual and legal research. (Id. ¶ 18).
Throughout 2006 and into 2007, Bianchi grew increasingly concerned about Couture's inaction, but alleges that he was again assured by someone at CPCS that Couture would handle the case. (Id. ¶ 25). At some point, he learned that Couture "was in no condition to handle anyone's case" and resolved to sever the relationship. (Id. ¶ 26). Thereafter, he attempted to retrieve his transcripts and trial file from Couture and CPCS. (Id. ¶ 29). On August 29, 2007, attorney David Nathanson of CPCS sent a letter to Bianchi in response to his request for transcripts, stating that he could not compel Couture to return the documents because "[he] ha[s] almost no leverage over Attorney Couture at this point as he no longer has any active cases with [CPCS]." (Pet. Ex. R). The letter directed Bianchi to contact the Board of Bar Overseers if Couture did not provide the transcripts. (Id.). Bianchi contends that he finally re-acquired histranscripts in 2008, at which time, he began to assemble a Rule 30(b) motion. (Pet. Ex. JJJJ ¶¶ 33-34).
On September 30, 2013, Bianchi, acting pro se, filed a second motion for a new trial pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b). (Pet. Ex. X). That motion was denied on November 18, 2014. (Id.). On January 17, 2015, Bianchi filed a petition for discretionary review by a single justice pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E. (Id.) That petition was denied on June 9, 2016. (Pet. Ex. Z).
On June 28, 2016, Bianchi filed the present habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254. Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that it is time-barred.
Bianchi contends that during the more than fifteen years between his conviction and the filing of the present habeas petition, he was diligent in pursuing his rights. Beginning in December 2005, he contacted multiple attorneys requesting assistance. (Pet. Ex. JJJJ ¶¶ 22, 35; Pet. Ex. YY-HHH). He contends that through his research he discovered that the court had imposed an unlawful sentence concerning his conviction for violating a protective order. (Pet. Ex. JJJJ ¶ 38). He also states that he conducted research into possible defenses and reviewed evidence demonstrating his mental health as a young man throughout the period. (Id. ¶ 39). Eventually, he wrote a Rule 30(b) motion that was more than 568 pages long, although it was apparently never filed. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34).
Bianchi contends that his ability to move his case forward was hampered by his medical condition. He contends that starting in January 2004, he suffered from periods of prolonged and serious illness due to kidney stones. (Id. ¶ 20). He states that he was seriously ill for most of 2004 and 2005, was hospitalized twice within a three-week period in 2006, had a "very severe health issue of the same nature" in 2010, was hospitalized in April 2011, and was againhospitalized in 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 40, 39, 42).
Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is time-barred.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") imposed a one-year limitations period for habeas corpus petitions by state prisoners. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). As relevant here, the limitations period runs from "the date on which the judgment became...
To continue reading
Request your trial