Boston v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 17 November 2015
• Docket Number: C/A No.: 5:14-cv-4473-MGL-KDW
• Parties: Taveio Rauol Bilal Boston, #347753, Petitioner, v. Warden Reynolds, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

Taveio Rauol Bilal Boston, #347753, Petitioner, v. Warden Reynolds, Respondent.

C/A No.: 5:14-cv-4473-MGL-KDW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

November 17, 2015

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Taveio Rauol Bilal Boston ("Petitioner") is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) DSC, for a Report and Recommendation on Respondent's Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 25, 26. On May 7, 2015, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Petitioner of the summary judgment procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to Respondent's motion. ECF No. 27. Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment on September 2, 2015. ECF No. 43. Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and the record in this case, the undersigned recommends that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, be granted.

I. Background

Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Lee Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"). In March 2011, Petitioner was indicted by a Darlington County Grand Jury for two counts of murder (2011-GS-16-0371; 2011-GS-16-0372) and one count of assault and battery with intent to kill ("ABWIK") (2011-GS-16-0370). App 4; 84-88.¹ On September 14, 2011, Petitioner pleaded guilty to all counts before the Honorable Paul M. Burch. App. 1-28. During his plea, Public Defender Richard Jones represented Petitioner, and Deputy Solicitor Kernard E. Redmond appeared on behalf of the State. App. 1. Judge Burch sentenced Petitioner to 20-years imprisonment for the ABWIK conviction and 36-years imprisonment for both murder convictions, instructing the sentences run concurrently. App. 26. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of his convictions or sentences.

II. Procedural History

On June 12, 2012, Petitioner filed an Application for Post-Conviction Relief ("PCR") alleging "ineffective assistance of counsel" and "prosecutor misconduct allegation." App. 29-32. In an Attachment, Petitioner raised 16 ineffective assistance of counsel claims and two prosecutorial misconduct claims. App. 37-42. Petitioner raised the following claims verbatim:

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Allegations

1. Petitioner asserts that his plea was involuntary.

2. Petitioner states the material claim that counsel was clearly ineffective for not not going over discovery material with Petitioner after repeated demands. The with holding of evidence by counsel denied Petitioner of his due process rights, and Petitioner can now state that his plea was not knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntary made because Applicant was without material/evidence to properly make a inform intelligent decision.

3. Applicant fifth, sixth, and fourteenth Amendment was violated by counsel failure to give Applicant Rule 5 and failure to advise applicant on evidence in discovery.

4. Counsel was ineffective for not explaining in depth the full meaning of trial. In which Petitioner did not fully understand the meaning of a trial. Petitioner told counsel that he had not wanted trial, due to the knowledge he obtained and meaning of a trial. Petitioner thought trial was only to prove innocence or guilt, however Petitioner wanted to prove that the elements of the crime was manslaughter and not murder. If not been for counsel's ineffectiveness, Petitioner would have went to trial.

5. Counsel was ineffective for advising to plea without disclosure of Rule 5. Counsel was ineffective for allowing solicitor to solicit a plea agreement on the defendant relinquishing petitioner's right to discovery in petitioner's criminal case. Rule 3.4 RI. DE, Rule 407 SCACR. Petitioner claims that if he would have had access or had been exposed to prosecutor's file he would of went to trial. If not had been for counsel's ineffectiveness, Petitioner would have chosen to go to trial.

6. Counsel was ineffective by rendering erroneous advice. thus making plea involuntary. Counsel told petitioner to falsely answer the questions were just court formality. If not had been for counsel's ineffectiveness, petitioner would have went to trial.

7. Petitioner asserts that defense counsel's erroneous advice that defendant would receive a maximum of 2 consecitive life sentences if he proceeded trial, therefore constitutes ineffective assistance and rendered guilty plea invalid. If not had been for counsel's ineffectiveness Petitioner would have went to trial.

8. Counsel failed to investigate Petitioner's medications when Petitioner asked numerous times.

9. Counsel failed to adequately prepare Petitioner's case.

10. Petitioner asked counsel "What happens if I go to trial" and counsel replied "you will get two consecutive life sentences." Petitioner really had the intentions of going to trial, but his counsel didn't even know Petitioner was in the county and had just transferred to the county from the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Counsel was just visiting other inmates and petitioner asked can he speak with him on his case of going to trial. Counsel said "you either are going to plea September 12th or go to trial November 17th." So petitioner asked "if I plea on the 12th of September can I put in for an appeal." Counsel replied "No you have to do the whole time you plead too, no parole or nothing." So petitioner asked for his Rule #5 and the counsel said it would take one week, but petitioner never received it. If petitioner would have received his Rule 5, he would of went to trial.

11. On March 9th of 2011, petitioner went up for a bond hearing, but the Judge was also doing plea bargains. This was the 2nd time Petitioner and counsel met up. Bond was denied, so petitioner was placed in a conference room to wait being transferred back to DJJ and an unfimilar face and Petitioner's counsel came in and said "Are you going to plea to this 40 years, because we're trying to get you out of the way, so you need to think while the Judge is on lunch break." Petitioner said "This is my life and we're talking about 40 years of it, so I need way more than a lunch break to think about this." The unfamiliar face replied "you plea now, we count your time you already did, you'll be like in your late 50's or early 60's when you come home, I mean look at your grandfather, he's how old?." Petitioner replied "He's 63." Unfamiliar face said "look at him he's moving, good, you'll be like him when you come home." Petitioner looked at him crazy and said "I'm not pleading, so ya'll can (just send me back to DJJ." Petitioner felt like he was being rushed.

12. Counsel and Petitioner met once again and Petitioner told counsel to look through his evaluations, medical files, and his life history to see if there was some errors. Counsel said "Did you do the crime?." Petitioner replied "yes." Counselreplied "then that's all that matters and they only found something on your brain that starts with a P and it's normal, so you are guilty." Counsel failed to look inside medical history, evaluation, and life history. If counsel would have did so, Petitioner would have went to trial.

13. Petitioner's family tried to get in touch with Petitioner's counsel numerous times at his office by leaving messages, but counsel never returned calls or anything.

14. Counsel failed to discuss case with Petitioner, everytime they met, he wanted petitioner to just plea.

15. Counsel told Petitioner he had three choices and the choices were "an open plea 30 to life, 40 years, and a recommendation of 40 years." But counsel explained each choice and he said "I think you should plea to the recommendation of 40 years, because the judge can't give you over 40 years, he can either give you 40 years or under." But when Petitioner got in front of the judge on his sentencing day the judge said "Now you know by this recommendation of 40 years I can either give you over 40 years or under 40 years, Mr. Boston." Counsel lied to Petitioner and if Petitioner would have knew that, he would have just went to trial.

16. Counsel also told Petitioner "your going to end up like my other 17 year-old client John Bridges, because he waited to long to plea and he got 45 years." Petitioner was incarcerated with John Brides since they both were 14 in DJJ. Petitioner felt like counsel was trying to use that statement to make him plea faster.

Prosecutorial Misconduct Allegation

1. Petitioner asserts that prosecuter threaten and forced Petitioner to plea, thus making petitioner's plea involuntary.

2. The Solicitor stated "if you don't plea today, I'll give you the 180 days that the judge gave you to await another bond hearing to think bout my plea offer. But I promise I will take you to trial, if you don't plea before your 180 days is up." Petitioner's counsel was present and so was his father and grandparents. The Solicitor said that the only reason he didn't take Petitioner to trial then was because his wife was pregnant. But Solicitor made sure to Petitiner that if he went to trial, he'll make sure Petitioner would spend the rest of his life in prison.

App. 37-42. On August 23, 2012, the State filed a Return and requested an evidentiary hearing. App. 43-46. An evidentiary hearing was conducted before the Honorable R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., on July 15, 2013. App. 47. Petitioner was present and represented by Charles T. Brooks, Esq., and Assistant Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan represented the State. Id. Petitioner and his plea attorney, J. Richard Jones, testified at the PCR hearing. App. 47-74. In an Order dated August 27, 2013, the PCR court denied Petitioner's PCR Application in full, finding Petitionermade the following allegations and making the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, quoted verbatim:

ALLEGATIONS

In his application, Applicant

...