Brown v. Sec'y
Decision Date | 15 April 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 8:15-cv-2732-T-33EAJ |
Parties | WILLIAM P. BROWN, II, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Petitioner William P. Brown, II, an inmate in the Florida Department of Corrections proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). He challenges his convictions entered by the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida. Respondent filed a response (Doc. 11), which raises no challenge to the petition's timeliness. Brown filed a reply (Doc. 14). Upon review, the petition must be denied.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A jury convicted Brown of attempted second degree murder (count one), robbery with a firearm (count two), and attempted robbery with a firearm (count three). (Doc. 13, Ex. 1, Vol. II, pp. 242-44.) The trial court sentenced Brown to life in prison on count two, 30 years in prison on count one, and 15 years in prison on count three. (Doc. 13, Ex. 1, Vol. III, pp. 427-33.) The state appellate court reversed his conviction on count one, and remanded for a new trial on that count. Brown v. State, 74 So.3d 539, 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). It affirmed Brown's convictions and sentences in all other respects. Id. According to Brown and Respondent, the State announced a nolle prosequi of count one. (See Doc. 1, p. 6; Doc. 11, p. 3.)
Brown filed a state habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (Doc. 13, Ex. 10.) The state appellate court denied the petition without comment. (Doc. 13, Ex. 11.) Brown filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. (Doc. 13, Ex. 12.) After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied relief. (Doc. 13, Exs. 15, 17.) The state appellate court granted Brown a belated appeal and per curiam affirmed the denial of postconviction relief. (Doc. 13, Exs. 21, 24.) Brown also filed a successive postconviction motion, which the state court dismissed. (Doc. 13, Exs. 18, 19.) Brown did not appeal the dismissal.
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 this deferential 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 that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.
"The focus . . . is on whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable . . . an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one." Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). "As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). Accord Brown v. Head, 272 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001) (). The phrase "clearly established Federal law" encompasses only the holdings of the United States Supreme Court "as of the time of the relevant state-court decision." Williams, 529 U.S. at 412.
The purpose of federal review is not to re-try the case. "The [AEDPA] modified a federal habeas court's role in reviewing state prisoner applications in order to prevent federal habeas 'retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law." Cone, 535 U.S. at 693. In other words, "AEDPA prevents defendants-and federal courts-from using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts." Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 779 (2010). See also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180-81 (2011) () (citations omitted).
In per curiam decisions without written opinions, the state district court of appeal denied Brown's state habeas petition and affirmed the denial of postconviction relief. It also rejected, without discussion, the claim of trial court error that Brown raises in Ground Four. These decisions warrant deference under Section 2254(d)(1) because "the summary nature of a state court's decision does not lessen the deference that it is due." Wright v. Moore, 278 F.3d 1245, 1254 (11th Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 278 F.3d 1245 (2002), cert. denied sub nom. Wright v. Crosby, 538 U.S. 906 (2003). See also Richter, 562 U.S. at 99 ().
Review of the state court decision is limited to the record that was before the state court:
We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers, in the past tense, to a state-court adjudication that "resulted in" a decision that was contrary to, or "involved" an unreasonable application of, established law. This backward-looking language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time, i.e., the record before the state court.
Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 180-81. Brown bears the burden of overcoming by clear and convincing evidence a state court factual determination. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). This presumption of correctness applies to a finding of fact but not to a mixed determination of law and fact. Parker v. Head, 244 F.3d 831, 836 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1046 (2001).
EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES; PROCEDURAL DEFAULT
Before a district court can grant habeas relief to a state prisoner under § 2254, the petitioner must exhaust all state court remedies that are available for challenging his conviction, either on direct appeal or in a state postconviction motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999) (). See also Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d 880, 891 (11th Cir. 2003) () (citations omitted). A state prisoner "'must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process,' including review by the state's court of last resort, even if review in that court is discretionary." Pruitt v. Jones, 348 F.3d 1355, 1358-59 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845).
To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must make the state court aware of both the legal and factual bases for his claim. See Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732, 735 (11th Cir. 1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial