Bryant v. Stirling

• Decision Date: 19 April 2022
• Docket Number: 9:16-CV-1423-DCN-MHC
• Parties: STEPHEN COREY BRYANT, Petitioner, v. BRYAN P. STIRLING, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; LYDELL CHESTNUT, Deputy Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution Secure Facility, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

1

STEPHEN COREY BRYANT, Petitioner, v. BRYAN P. STIRLING, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; LYDELL CHESTNUT, Deputy Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution Secure Facility, Respondents.

No. 9:16-CV-1423-DCN-MHC

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

April 19, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Molly H. Cherry, United States Magistrate Judge.

Stephen Corey Bryant (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner sentenced to death, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 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 Respondents' Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 90, 91. Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and the record in this case, the undersigned recommends that Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 91, be granted, and the Petition, ECF No. 37, be dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

The South Carolina Supreme Court briefly summarized the facts of Petitioner's crimes as follows:

Appellant began a crime spree with a first degree burglary on October 5, 2004. By the time the spree ended eight days later, appellant had committed three murders, assault and battery with intent to kill (ABIK), two more burglaries, and arson. While incarcerated awaiting trial, appellant threatened a correctional officer and subsequently attacked and seriously injured another.

Appellant “cased” isolated rural homes looking for vulnerable victims. He would appear midday at homes claiming to be looking for someone or having car trouble. Appellant burglarized [Robert] Dennis's home office a day after visiting Dennis's home. He next broke into [James] Ammons' home while no one was there, cutting the phone wires and stealing a pistol and ammunition. Later that day he shot victim [Clinton] Brown, who was fishing along the Wateree River, in the back.

On October 9, appellant killed an acquaintance (victim [Cliff] Gainey), leaving his body on a rural road, then stole electronics and an aquarium from Mr. Gainey's trailer before setting it on fire. Two days later, appellant went to victim [Willard] Tietjen's home, shot him nine times, and looted the house. Appellant answered several calls made to Mr. Tietjen's cell phone by Mr. Tietjen's wife and daughter, telling both of them that he was the “prowler” and that Mr. Tietjen was dead. He burned Mr. Tietjen's face and eyes with a cigarette. Appellant left two notes on paper and scrawled a message on the wall: “victim number four in two weeks, catch me if you can.” On another wall the word “catch” and some letters were written in blood.

Two days later appellant met victim [Christopher] Burgess at a convenience store around 4:30 a.m. They left together, and less than two hours later, a hunter found Mr. Burgess dead from gunshot wounds on a road bed in a rural area.

State v. Bryant, 704 S.E.2d 344, 344-45 (S.C. 2011).

Grand juries in both Richland and Sumter counties indicted Petitioner for a number of crimes stemming from the above-described spree. See ECF No. 16-12 at 162-89. When Petitioner was initially charged, Jack D. Howle, Jr., was appointed as counsel. See ECF No. 16-6 at 37. Thereafter, the State served notice that it was seeking the death penalty for the murder of Tietjen, and in May 2007, James H. Babb was appointed as additional counsel. See ECF No. 16-5 at 110. In July 2008, because of health issues, Babb was replaced on the defense team with John D. Clark. ECF No. 16-6 at 39-40.

A. Guilty Pleas and Sentencing

On August 18, 2008, Petitioner pled guilty before the Honorable Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge, to three counts of murder, two counts of first degree burglary, one count of second degree burglary, two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill (“ABWIK”), one count of second degree arson, armed robbery, possession of a stolen handgun, and threatening the life of a public employee. ECF No. 16-6 at 60-107.

The capital sentencing phase took place on September 2-5, 8, 9, 2008. See ECF No. 16-1 at 14-17. On September 11, 2008, Judge Russo sentenced Petitioner to 30 days' imprisonment for threatening the life of a public employee, to 5 years' imprisonment for possession of a stolen handgun, to 15 years' imprisonment for second degree burglary, to 20 years' imprisonment for each of the ABWIK convictions, to 25 years' imprisonment for arson, to 30 years' imprisonment for armed robbery, to separate sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the murders of Gainey and Burgess and for each count of first-degree burglary. ECF No. 16-5 at 59-61. Judge Russo found beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstance that Petitioner had committed murder while committing a robbery and while armed with a deadly weapon and sentenced Petitioner to death for the murder of Tietjen. ECF No. 16-5 at 61-63.

B. Direct Appeal

Petitioner appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court. ECF No. 16-6 at 119-34. Petitioner was represented by Joseph L. Savitz, III, who raised the following issue in the appeal:

The sentencing judge committed reversible error by excluding testimony that Bryant's aunt had been sexually abused by her father (Bryant's paternal grandfather), who the defense alleged also began abusing Bryant at the age of seven, as this evidence was both relevant under Rules 401 and 404, SCRE, and mitigating under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

ECF No. 16-6 at 122. On January 7, 2011, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences and denied his petition for rehearing. ECF No. 16-6 at 178-83, 187-89.

C. First Post-Conviction Relief Action

Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief (“PCR”). Represented by Melissa J. Armstrong and Heath P. Taylor (“PCR counsel”), Petitioner alleged multiple grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations. ECF No. 16-7 at 145-49. A PCR evidentiary hearing was held before the Honorable R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge, on October 1-3, 2012. See ECF No. 16-7 at 151-52. In an order dated December 4, 2012, Judge Cothran denied and dismissed Petitioner's PCR application. ECF No. 16-12 at 84-137. Petitioner filed a motion to alter or amend, which was denied by order dated February 14, 2013. ECF No. 16-12 at 138-58.

D. PCR Appeal

Petitioner, represented by Susan. B. Hackett and Miles E. Coleman, filed a timely petition for a writ of certiorari. ECF No. 16-34. On March 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the petition for writ of certiorari. ECF No. 16-39. The court also denied Petitioner's subsequent petition for rehearing. ECF Nos. 16-41, 16-42.

E. Federal Habeas Corpus Action

Petitioner then commenced this action on June 19, 2015. ECF No. 1. On April 28, 2016, Petitioner filed an amended petition^[1] and a motion to stay his federal habeas action pending the exhaustion of his state court remedies. ECF Nos. 37, 38. The Court granted Petitioner's motion to stay on July 26, 2016. ECF No. 52.

F. Second and Third PCR Actions

On May 3, 2016, Petitioner filed two PCR applications in state court. In one application, Petitioner asserted that his “sentence of death violate[d] the Eighth Amendment of the United State's Constitution because he suffers from Intellectual Disabilities.” ECF No. 89-38 at 28. In the other application, he asserted multiple grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 89-2 at 4-5.

The Honorable W. Thomas Cooper, Circuit Court Judge, initially presided over both PCR actions. ECF No. 89-37 at 108. Judge Cooper allowed the Atkins-claim action but dismissed the action in which Petitioner had alleged claims related to trial, appellate, and PCR counsel. ECF Nos. 89-6, 89-8; ECF No. 89-37 at 110-16. Although Petitioner appealed the dismissal, his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of South Carolina on February 9, 2017. See ECF No. 89-15.

The Honorable William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge, was assigned to preside over the surviving action. ECF No. 89-37 at 117-18. Judge Seals conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 1, 2018, and issued an order denying the application and dismissing the action on January 3, 2019. ECF No. 89-37 at 146-59; ECF No. 89-38 at 1-24; ECF No. 89-40 at 160. Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied in an order dated March 5, 2019. ECF No. 89-38 at 2526.

Both Petitioner and the State filed appeals. The Supreme Court of South Carolina denied both petitions, as well as Petitioner's subsequent petition for rehearing. ECF Nos. 89-51, 89-52, 89-54.

G. Stay Lifted in Federal Habeas Corpus Action

Shortly thereafter, the stay was lifted in this action. The parties have now fully briefed Petitioner's federal habeas corpus claims, and this matter is ripe for review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Section 2254

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to hear a petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person imprisoned pursuant to a state court proceeding. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) provides relief to a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations period that begins to run on the date a petitioner's conviction becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 327 (4th Cir. 2000).

Under South Carolina law, in a federal petition for habeas relief a petitioner may present only those issues that were presented to the highest South Carolina court through direct appeal or through an appeal from the denial of a PCR application, regardless of...