Brumfield v. Cain
| Decision Date | 23 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 04–787–JJB–CN. |
| Parties | Kevan BRUMFIELD v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Nicholas J. Trenticosta, New Orleans, LA, Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defenders Office, Lafayette, LA, Richard William Westling, Washington, DC, for Kevin Brumfield.
Monisa L. Thompson, Premila Burns, East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney's Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Kevan Brumfield's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed against Burl Cain, the warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Brumfield asks this Court to declare him mentally retarded and ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). (Docs. 111, 121). His petition is opposed by the State of Louisiana. (Doc. 118). The Court held an Atkins1 evidentiary hearing on the issue of petitioner's mental retardation 2 on July 12–16 and August 3–4, 2010.
Petitioner Kevan Brumfield was convicted in Louisiana state court of the 1993 murder of a Baton Rouge police officer and sentenced to death by a jury in 1995. State v. Brumfield, No. 1–93–865 (19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana) (Tyson, J.). The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. State v. Brumfield, 737 So.2d 660 (La.1998). The United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Brumfield v. Louisiana, 526 U.S. 1025, 119 S.Ct. 1267, 143 L.Ed.2d 362 (1999).
Brumfield is in the custody of the State of Louisiana by virtue of his incarceration at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. In 2000, he filed for post-conviction relief in Louisiana state court, alleging among other things that he has was ineligible for execution by reason of insanity and mental incompetency. State of Louisiana ex rel. Brumfield v. Cain, No. 1–93–865 (19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana). Brumfield's petition relied on evidence submitted at his sentencing hearing. ( See Post–Conviction Petition, Vol. PC).3
On June 16, 2003, within a year of the date the Supreme Court barred executing mentally retarded persons in its 2002 Atkins decision, Brumfield amended his state post-conviction petition, asserting an Atkins claim for the first time. (Amended Post–Conviction Petition, Vol. PC). The State filed an answer, arguing that the evidence from the penalty phase of the trial on which Brumfield relied was insufficient to state a prima facie case necessary to trigger an Atkins evidentiary hearing. (Answer to Amended Petition, Vol. PC, pp. 1–6). On September 23, 2003, Brumfield replied to the State's answer, contending the State's response for denying an evidentiary hearing did not comport with precedent. (Brumfield's Reply to State's Answer to Amended Petition, Vol. PC, pp. 1–2).
The state habeas court tasked with assessing Brumfield's post-conviction petition denied him an evidentiary hearing on the Atkins issue. (Transcript of State Post–Conviction Hearing on October 23, 2003, Vol. PC, p. 2) (Anderson, J.). In so doing, the state habeas court mooted Brumfield's pending requests for funding to develop his Atkins claim. ( See Initial State Court Petition for Post–Conviction Relief, Vol. PC, ¶¶ 32(p), 36–37) (describing lack of funds to retain experts to conduct neurological examinations of Brumfield); Expedited Motion for Order on Petition for Post–Conviction Relief, Vol. PC, ¶¶ 3–7; (Amended State Court Petition for Post–Conviction Relief, Vol. PC, ¶¶ 104–05) (seeking funds to retain experts for evaluating Brumfield in variety of areas); Reply to State's Answer to Amended Petition, Vol. PC, ¶ 10 (). At the same hearing, the state trial court summarily denied Brumfield's petition in its entirety. (Transcript of State Post–Conviction Hearing on Oct. 23, 2003, Vol. PC, pp. 1–16). The Louisiana Supreme Court likewise denied review of the state habeas judge's rulings. Brumfield v. State, 885 So.2d 580 (La.2004).
On November 4, 2004, petitioner timely filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1). On November 1, 2007, petitioner amended his petition after finally receiving funding to develop certain of his habeas claims for relief, including his Atkins claim. ( See Doc. 30, pp. 1–6) (recounting the various failures of the Louisiana Indigent Defense Assistance Board, Brumfield's previous counsel, to provide adequate funding, as recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State ex rel. Williams v. State, 888 So.2d 792 (La.2004)). Following answers by the State, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that Brumfield's habeas petition be denied in full except to the extent that Brumfield was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Atkins claim. (Doc. 37).
Following objection by the State and oral argument on the issue, this Court approved and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full. (Doc. 43). The Court then held its Atkins evidentiary hearing from July 12–16 and August 3–4, 2010. Petitioner filed his post-hearing brief (Doc. 111), the State filed its opposition brief (Doc. 118), and petitioner filed a reply brief (Doc. 121) on November 21, 2011, which submitted the matter to this Court.
Despite having already held an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's Atkins claim, the State asserts newly-decided cases of the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have changed the law and altered the propriety of that action. Because such a claim, if true, would preclude reaching the merits of petitioner's Atkins claim, the Court proceeds to address this matter. The Court will treat the State's briefing on the issue as a motion for reconsideration in light of the newly-issued decisions.
The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Doc. 37) outlined the reasons for granting petitioner an Atkins hearing. Because Brumfield's sentence pre-dated Atkins and his post-conviction application in state court relied on evidence introduced at Brumfield's sentencing hearing, the magistrate judge assessed that evidence and agreed with the state habeas judge that Brumfield failed to meet his burden of presenting sufficient facts to put his mental retardation at issue. (Doc. 37, p. 20). Furthermore, the magistrate judge, citing Morris v. Dretke, 413 F.3d 484 (5th Cir.2005)4, raised but did not decide whether the newly-presented evidence of mental retardation in Brumfield's federal habeas petition “merely supplemented” rather than “fundamentally altered” his mental retardation claim under the exhaustion requirement. ( Id. pp. 22–31). Instead, the report concluded that petitioner's failure to adequately develop his claims in state court resulted from the state court's refusal to grant him funds to develop expert testimony necessary to substantiate his Atkins claim. ( Id. pp. 30–32). The magistrate judge found that Brumfield's diligence in consistently pressing his Atkins claim in the state habeas court, coupled with the state court ignoring his multiple requests for funding for expert assistance in developing his claim, satisfied the cause and prejudice test. ( Id.). Moreover, because the magistrate judge found the additional evidence contained in Brumfield's amended federal habeas petition constituted a prima facie showing under Atkins, the report recommended this Court conduct an evidentiary hearing. ( Id. p. 32).
The State objected to the report's conclusion that an evidentiary hearing was warranted. (Doc. 38). It first argued that under Moore v. Quarterman, 491 F.3d 213 (5th Cir.2007), Brumfield's newly-presented evidence of mental retardation “fundamentally altered” his Atkins claim, rendering it unexhausted.5 The State also argued that since Brumfield failed to make a reasonable showing of mental retardation to the state habeas court, it correctly found he failed to present a prima facie case as required by Louisiana law, which is entitled to a presumption of correctness.6 The Court held oral argument on the matter, agreed with the magistrate judge (Minute Entry for June 30, 2008, Doc. 42), and issued a ruling adopting the report as its decision (Doc. 43).
Federal habeas law precludes federal courts from re-adjudicating a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court decision was either (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Even a state court adjudication found incorrect under federal standards does not necessarily suffice in meeting this statutory standard; the state court action must also be objectively unreasonable such that fair-minded jurists would agree on the impropriety of the state court decision. Harrington v. Richter, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785–86, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). In all inquiries under § 2254(d), federal review is confined to the record before the state court. Cullen v. Pinholster, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011); Richter, 131 S.Ct. at 785.
State court factual determinations are presumed correct unless a petitioner overcomesthat presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The interplay between § 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1) has been the subject of much spilled ink, but the Supreme Court has not definitely decided the issue.7 It has, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hill v. Anderson
- Brumfield v. Cain
-
Brumfield v. Cain
...in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1), (2).The District Court found that both of these requirements had been met. 854 F.Supp.2d 366, 383–384 (M.D.La.2012). First, the District Court held that denying Brumfield an evidentiary hearing without first granting him funding to de......
- Brumfield v. Cain
-
An Empirical Assessment of Georgia's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard to Determine Intellectual Disability in Capital Cases
...could be intellectually disabled and have sufficient insight and planning ability to deliberately kill."); Brumfield v. Cain, 854 F. Supp. 2d 366, 395-96 (M.D. La. 2012) ("In assessing the weight to be given to criminal facts, this Court lends great credence to the clinical admonitions that......