Budd v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
| Docket Number | 22-81441-CIV-ALTONAGA |
| Decision Date | 03 November 2023 |
| Parties | STEPHEN JEROME BUDD, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Petitioner, Stephen Jerome Budd's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [ECF No 1]. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his state conviction and sentence in case number 2013-CF-003572 in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida. (See generally Pet.). Respondent filed a Response [ECF No. 12]; an Appendix to the Response with an Index [ECF No. 14] and accompanying Exhibits 1-39 [ECF No. 14-1-14-10]; and a Notice of Filing Transcripts [ECF No. 13] with accompanying transcripts [ECF Nos. 13-1 to 13-4]. Petitioner filed a Reply [ECF No. 15]. The Court has carefully considered the parties' written submissions, the record and applicable law. For the following reasons, the Petition is dismissed in part on procedural grounds and denied in part on the merits.
On May 26, 2015, Petitioner was charged by an Amended Information with two counts of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age (Counts 1 and 2), one count of lewd or lascivious molestation (Count 3), and two counts of lewd or lascivious exhibition (Counts 4 and 5). (See App., Ex. 1, Third Am. Information 21).[1]
Before his arrest, Petitioner was a teacher in Palm Beach County, Florida. During the 2006 to 2007 school year, Petitioner taught fourth-grade students, among whom were two girls Petitioner would come to molest several times. Petitioner's molestation of the victims went unreported for roughly six years until one of the victims (“Victim One”) broke her silence. (See Notice, Ex. 1, Trial Tr. 620:1-10). Victim One first told her boyfriend (see id.); and, roughly eight months later, she told her parents (see id. 621:2-21). After this revelation, Victim One and her parents contacted the police. (See id. 626:18-23).
Shortly after Victim One reported Petitioner's crimes, investigators set up a series of controlled calls between Petitioner and the victims to elicit a confession from him. (See id. 627:24628:10, 646:16-19). At trial, a recording - approximately two hours in length - of the controlled calls was played for the jury. (See id. 689:14-25). The State redacted the recording, following the trial court's order on a motion in limine, removing any references in the calls to uncharged conduct. (See id. 716:2-6). On the recording, Petitioner did not admit to molesting the victims nor did he unequivocally deny the numerous allegations the victims lodged against him. (See, e.g., id. 745:11-15, 754:18-24, 768:8-769:15, 788:23-789:25). After the controlled calls, the police arrested Petitioner. (See id. 837:15-17). Petitioner voluntarily answered the investigators' questions (see id. 839:3-5); however, Petitioner's post-arrest statements were not admitted at trial due to their hearsay nature (see id. 838:6-17).
During trial, defense counsel attacked the adequacy of the police investigation by questioning the lead detective on her failure to follow up on certain leads. (See id. 847:2-857:8). Defense counsel argued that the lead detective failed to conduct a thorough investigation by, for example, failing to obtain school records to confirm the victims' claims that Petitioner would take the victims out of their other classes to molest them. (See id. 848:19-849:14). On redirect, the State offered a sworn statement by the victims' Spanish teacher - which was not read to the jury directly but was described in another witness's testimony - stating that Petitioner took unspecified students from her class; given this statement, the lead investigator did not think it was necessary to obtain school records to confirm the victims' claims. (See id. 859:4-17, 864:6-18).
The State's closing argument underscored the large body of probative evidence the State presented. (See id. 1044:18-1081:21). The State also argued, in closing, that police conducted a thorough investigation, interviewing over 70 witnesses. (See id. 1052:25-1053:4). Defense argued the opposite in closing (see id. 1081:24-1112:25), asserting that police conducted an incomplete investigation and, thus, the State failed to carry its heavy burden of proving Petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see id. 1083:11-1084:15, 1111:8-24).
A jury found Petitioner guilty as charged on all counts. (See generally App., Ex. 1, Jury Verdict, 24-25). As a result, the trial court: adjudicated Petitioner guilty (see generally App., Ex. 1, J., 2); sentenced him to three consecutive life sentences on Counts 1, 2, and 3, and two concurrent 15-year sentences on Counts 4 and 5 (see generally App., Ex. 1, Sentence 4-16); and declared him a sexual predator under Florida law (see generally App., Ex. 1, Order Declaring Pet'r Sexual Predator 31-32).
Petitioner filed a direct appeal raising seven issues. (See generally App., Ex. 1, Initial Br. 36-91). The State filed an answer to Petitioner's direct appeal (see generally App., Ex. 1, Answer Br. 93-148), to which Petitioner filed a reply (see generally App., Ex. 1, Reply Br. 150-68). On May 11, 2017, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) affirmed the lower court proceedings in a per curiam, unwritten opinion. See Budd v. State, 226 So.3d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing and for certification of question (see generally App., Ex. 1, Mot. for Reh'g and for Certification of Question 172-78), which the Fourth DCA denied . The Fourth DCA issued its mandate on June 30, 2017. (See App., Ex. 1, June 30, 2017 Mandate 182).
On February 12, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (see generally App., Ex. 1, R. 3.850 Mot. 184-232), raising six grounds for relief. In the first five, Petitioner claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of counsel's failure to: (1) investigate and present witnesses who would have supported Petitioner's theory of a recent fabrication or fanciful tale; (2) introduce evidence of a civil suit that would have given the victims a motive to fabricate the allegations and support the theory of defense of a fanciful tale; (3) move for a continuance and review the State's redacted version of certain controlled calls before those calls were played for the jury, move to suppress those calls, or introduce exculpatory statements challenging the State's theory of prosecution; (4) introduce Petitioner's post-arrest statement at the time the recording of the controlled calls was introduced; and (5) object, and request the court give a curative instruction, to improper prosecutorial comments made during closing argument. (See id. 186, 197, 203, 213, 224, 227). Petitioner's sixth and final claims were the general assertion that Petitioner was cumulatively deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel. (See id. 227).
The State responded, arguing that the post-conviction court should grant an evidentiary hearing only as the second ground for relief. (See generally App., Ex. 1, Resp. to R. 3.850 Mot. 234-64).
In an Amended Order entered September 11, 2019, the post-conviction court granted an evidentiary hearing on the first, second, and sixth grounds for relief and summarily denied all other grounds. ). Following an evidentiary hearing (see generally Notice, Ex. 4, Evid. Hr'g Tr.), the post-conviction court denied Petitioner's first, second, and sixth grounds for relief. . On appeal, the Fourth DCA affirmed the denial in a per curiam, unelaborated opinion. See Budd v. State, 345 So.3d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). The mandate issued on September 2, 2022. (See App., Ex. 10, Sept. 2, 2022 Mandate 215).
Petitioner filed this Petition on September 12, 2022.[2] Petitioner asserts that: (1) the trial court erred in limiting the defense's cross-examination of one of the victims (“Ground One”);[3] (2) the trial court erred in allowing evidence of collateral crimes allegedly committed on another victim (“Ground Two”); (3) the trial court erred by admitting the substance of the Spanish teacher's statement that Petitioner's students were sometimes removed from her class (“Ground Three”); (4) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to identify and present witnesses who would have supported a fabrication defense (“Ground Four”); (5) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to introduce evidence of a civil suit between one of the victims and the school where Petitioner was employed (“Ground Five”); (6) counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to review the redacted versions of the controlled calls played to the jury (“Ground Six”); (7) counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to introduce Petitioner's post-arrest statement at the same time the controlled calls were played for the jury (“Ground Seven”); and (8) counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to object to the State's mischaracterization of the evidence during closing (“Ground Eight”). (See generally Pet.).
A court's review of a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233, 246 (2007). “The purpose of [the] AEDPA is to ensure that federal habeas relief...
To continue reading
Request your trial