Chandler v Moore
| Decision Date | 09 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | 994342,11 |
| Parties | Jim Eric CHANDLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael W. MOORE, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent- Appellee.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (No. 94-14125-CV-WDF), Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr., Judge.
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Jim Eric Chandler ("Chandler"), appeals the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. 2254. After reviewing the entire record in this case and having the benefit of oral argument and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
An Indian River County, Florida, grand jury returned an eight-count indictment charging Chandler with two counts of first degree murder, two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, three counts of trafficking in stolen property, and one count of aggravated assault. These charges arose from the robbery of an elderly couple and their death by bludgeoning. A jury recommended a death sentence, and the trial court followed the jury's recommendation.
Chandler reported to the authorities that he found the bodies of Harold and Rachel Steinberger in a wooded area behind their residence. When he reported the crime, Chandler told the officers that Mr. Steinberger had invited Chandler into his home and asked Chandler to mow his grass. Chandler indicated to the officers that he was in the Steinberger's neighborhood checking on his ex-girlfriend's house at the time Mr. Steinberger asked him to perform yard work. The day after he reported the crime, Chandler called Officer Redstone and inquired whether the police were going to arrest him. Officer Redstone responded negatively, but asked Chandler to accompany him to the victims' house and point out any missing items. Chandler acquiesced to Officer Redstone's request.
During the "walk-through," officers asked Chandler why anyone would go in the woods to be killed, and Chandler replied that they [the victims] were ordered out of the house. Chandler mentioned that the victims had been stabbed, although the authorities had not yet released that information. When the officers queried whether the victims might have resisted, Chandler speculated that the victims would not have resisted if the murderer placed a knife to the wife's throat. Chandler further stated that the victims were probably killed for the $150,000 they made upon the sale of their house; however, Chandler knew that the victims had only $10,000 in their bank account. Chandler would have known this information from an examination of the victims' bank account record. Finally, Chandler stated that if he were the officers, he would arrest Chandler.
After Chandler's arrest, he again spoke to Officer Redstone and told him a story of two hit men who were the likely murderers. He posited that the victims were connected to the murder of a man named Gill, and their murders were a retaliation for their involvement with Gill's murder. An investigation revealed, however, that Chandler attended school with a man named Gill who committed suicide. The investigation further showed that the victims had no connection with Gill's suicide. During the interview, Chandler also stated that he thought the murder weapon was discarded in a body of water, and the officers would never find it.
The evidence at trial indicated that Mr. Steinberger's hands were tied behind his back with a dog leash. An autopsy revealed that the victims had been killed by blows to the head administered by a blunt object, possibly a baseball bat. The autopsy also indicated that both victims had been stabbed numerous times in the back. Chandler's ex-girlfriend testified at the trial that Chandler had been checking on her house weeks prior to the Steinberger's murders. Additionally, the evidence showed that numerous personal items were missing from the victims' house. Witnesses testified that Chandler sold these items to them, telling prospective buyers that he needed money to bail his brother out of jail. Chandler's brother and mother testified, however, that the brother had never been in jail.
B. Procedural History
A jury convicted Chandler of two counts of first degree murder and recommended the death penalty. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and imposed a death sentence. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Chandler's convictions, but remanded for re-sentencing because the trial court erroneously excused two prospective jurors. Chandler v. State, 442 So.2d 171 (Fla.1983). Chandler's second jury also recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed. Chandler v. State, 534 So.2d 701 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1075, 109 S.Ct. 2089, 104 L.Ed.2d 652 (1989). Chandler then filed a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief raising thirteen issues. Chandler also filed a state habeas petition raising eleven issues. The trial court denied all relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the trial court's rulings. Chandler v.. Dugger, 634 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1994). Chandler then filed a petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, which the district court denied. Chandler then perfected this appeal.
1. Whether the trial court's comments at the capital trial deprived Chandler of the presumption of innocence and relieved the State of its burden of proof in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the prosecuting attorneys' comments at the trial deprived Chandler of his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
3. Whether the State knowingly presented false or misleading evidence and failed to disclose exculpatory evidence at Chandler's re-sentencing.
4. Whether the prosecuting attorneys' comments at Chandler's re-sentencing hearing deprived him of his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
5. Whether Chandler's Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court denied his challenges for cause under Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992), and whether his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal.
6. Whether the State violated Chandler's right of confrontation when it presented hearsay evidence at Chandler's re-sentencing hearing.
7. Whether Chandler's death sentence violates Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992).
"We review the district court's grant or denial of habeas corpus relief de novo." Wright v. Hopper, 169 F.3d 695, 701(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 934, 120 S.Ct. 336, 145 L.Ed.2d 262 (1999).
Chandler argues that the trial court's comments at his trial indicated a bias in favor of the State, thus relieving the State of its burden of proof and violating his Due Process rights. Chandler proffers two instances of alleged prejudicial court comments. The first comment occurred during voir dire when defense counsel asked a prospective juror if she thought Chandler was in trouble. The trial court stated, "[i]t's obvious he's in trouble." [R. Vol. 5, Exh. A, p.821]. The second comment occurred when the trial court questioned the prospective jurors about pretrial publicity. After the prospective juror stated that she might have an opinion about Chandler's guilt or innocence, the trial court asked, "is that opinion such that it cannot be changed by the evidence and testimony that comes out and takes place during this trial?" [R. Vol. 4, Exh. A, p. 34].
The second comment is not properly before this court for review. Chandler raised this issue for the first time in his Rule 3.850 state post-conviction motion. The issue was included in Chandler's cumulative errors issue. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court found that issue barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal. Chandler, 634 So.2d at 1068. Since the last state court to consider the issue determined that it was procedurally barred, the issue is barred from federal review. Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). Since the Florida Supreme Court found the issue to be procedurally barred, we are precluded from addressing the merits unless Chandler can demonstrate "cause and prejudice" for his procedural default or that he is "actually innocent." Johnson v. Singletary, 938 F.2d 1166, 1174-75 (11th Cir.1991). Chandler has not demonstrated that either exception applies to his case.
The first comment is properly before this court for review. Chandler raised this issue on direct appeal, and the Florida Supreme Court found no reversible error. [R. Vol. 10, Exh. E]; Chandler, 442 So.2d at 172, n. 1. We agree that this comment, when viewed in its entirety and in the proper context, did not undermine Chandler's presumption of innocence. The comment at issue arose in the following context:
Mrs. Watson: Well, I distinctly remember when I read it, when it first happened, that I had sympathy for the mother.
Mr. Maslanik: For the mother?
Mrs. Watson: For the mother, for the people, for the ones, you know-
Mr. Maslanik: When you say you had sympathy for the mother, who were you talking about?
Mrs. Watson: Well, I was thinking of his mother. I guess, because I had lost a son, you know, and by him getting in trouble like that, I had compassion for her.
Mr. Maslanik: So when you read the articles or whatever you read or heard, you felt that he was in trouble?
Mrs. Watson: Yes, I felt he was in trouble.
....
Mr. Maslanik: Do you feel that in any way he's in trouble?
Mr. Stone: Well, You Honor, I'm going to object to that. I don't think that's a proper question.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. U.S.A, CASE NO. 6:09-cv-1110-Orl-28DAB
...accept or reject the prosecution's offer). Thus, counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless issue. Chandler v. Moore, 240 F.3d 907, 917 (11th Cir. 2001). Any of Petitioner's allegations not specifically addressed herein have been found to be without merit. Accordingly, it i......
-
Cuevas v. United States
...to raise a meritless claim. See Freeman v. Attorney General State of Florida, 536 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Chandler v. Moore, 240 F.3d 907, 917 (11th Cir. 2001)); Ladd v. Jones, 864 F.2d 108,110 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Winfield, 960 F.2d 970,974 (11th Cir. 1992); United......