Chism v. Middlebrooks

• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:20-CV-432-DPJ-LGI
• Decision Date: 31 July 2023
• Parties: ADAM CHISM PETITIONER v. WARDEN SCOTT MIDDLEBROOKS RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

1

ADAM CHISM PETITIONER
v.
WARDEN SCOTT MIDDLEBROOKS RESPONDENT

Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-432-DPJ-LGI

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division

July 31, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

LAKEYSHA GREER ISAAC UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Adam Chism seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After a review of the entire record and all the applicable law, the undersigned recommends that his petition be dismissed with prejudice.

Factual and Procedural Background

Chism was convicted of burglary of a dwelling by a Hinds County jury and sentenced as a violent habitual offender to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) without the possibility of parole. The relevant facts are accurately described in the state court's opinion and are incorporated here verbatim.

Officer Angela Nichols of the Jackson Police Department was dispatched to a potential home burglary in progress. The house's alarm system was triggered, resulting in the alarm company calling the police, and the police department dispatched Nichols who was close by.

Nichols arrived at the scene and walked around to the basement in the back of the house where the alarm originated. She saw Chism backing out of the basement carrying a bag. Nichols ordered Chism to drop the bag and get down on the ground. He complied.

2

Nichols arrested Chism after she inspected the bag and found an X-Box One game console.

Chism testified that he was on his way to his father's house early that Saturday morning to work, like he normally did on Saturdays. As they were driving, Chism and his wife, Mary, got into a dispute. To avoid any further confrontation, Chism testified that he asked Mary to pull over and let him out of the car. He would continue the rest of the way on foot. Chism said that, since he was already on probation from a previous conviction, he wanted to be extra cautious to avoid confrontation. Mary let him out of the car and sped off hurriedly, which worried Chism. He testified that he began walking to the house of his friend's aunt, which was nearby. He planned to borrow a phone to check on his wife and let his father know that he was on the way.

Chism then testified that he was walking past the house at issue, and he heard an alarm. He walked around the house to investigate and assist anyone that may need help. He then claimed the back door was wide open. Chism also said that he did not intend to go inside and take anything; but he entered the house and called for anyone that may be inside. He then noticed a bag on the floor of the basement. He picked up the bag just as Nichols was rounding the corner.

After placing Chism in custody, Nichols testified that she and other officers entered the house through the basement door to inspect and secure the house. Kenneth Gray, the then-tenant of the house, testified that the basement door separating the basement from outside had been pushed in and the doorframe sustained significant damage. Gray testified that he had not given anyone permission to enter his residence.

3

Gray confirmed Nichols's testimony that his bicycle, which he usually stored inside the basement, was leaning against the wall outside of the basement door.

Once inside the house, Nichols proceeded upstairs into the kitchen and living-room areas. She testified that the door separating the basement from the living room was totally destroyed and completely torn in half. She found the living room in disarray, and the couch was thrown about as though someone had been searching through it. Nichols stated these were all common signs of forced entry and burglary. Chism v. State, 253 So.3d 343, 344-45 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)

Based on the evidence presented at trial, Chism was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced as a violent habitual offender to life without parole.

Discussion

Aggrieved, Chism appealed his conviction alleging trial errors and insufficiency of the evidence. Finding no errors, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Chism's conviction and sentence. Chism, 253 So.3d 343. Subsequent petitions for rehearing and certiorari were denied. Chism challenged his habitual offender status in state post-conviction proceedings, but the Mississippi Supreme Court found he had no right to post-conviction relief because he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a state or federal right. Chism now brings the instant petition and asserts as grounds for relief the following (as stated by Chism):

Ground One: Petitioner is convicted and in custody of M.D.O.C. in violation of the United States Constitution[,] laws[,] and treaties by denial of competent effective assistance of counsel and denial of due process and equal

4

protection of law through imposition of illegal sentence

Ground Two: Petitioner is convicted and is in M.D.O.C. in violation of the United States Constitution[,] laws[,] and treaties because trial judge erred in allowing the admission before the jury at the end of trial of the Appellant's prior house burglary conviction into evidence after previously excluding it under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 609, and admission of the Appellant's prior conviction was a per se violation of Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b), prior bad acts.

Ground Three: Petitioner was convicted and is in M.D.O.C. custody in violation of the United States Constitution[,] laws[,] an[d] treaties due to the trial court erred when it denied the Petitioner's Motion to Set Aside the Jury Verdict (J.N.O.V.) for legal insufficiency in the prosecution[']s case or, alternatively, to grant the Petitioner a new trial where the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Ground Four: Petitioner is convicted and in custody of the M.D.O.C. in violation of the United States Constitution[,] laws[,] an[d] treaties because the trial judge erred in refusing defense proposed jury instruction D-7, which correctly stated the law in circumstantial evidence cases, and was supported by the evidence presented at trial.

Ground Five: Petitioner was convicted and is in M.D.O.C. custody in [] violation of the United States Constitution[,] laws[,] and treaties by false imprisonment through denial of ex-post facto protection suppression of exculpatory evidence denial of access to court for redress through denial of competent effective assistance of appellate counsel and racial discrimination.

Procedurally Defaulted Claims

As a threshold matter, Chism's ineffective assistance of counsel claim in ground one, and the multiple claims raised in ground five, are foreclosed from federal review

5

because they are unexhausted. Applicants seeking federal habeas relief under § 2254 are required to exhaust all claims in state court prior to requesting federal collateral relief. Parr v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 2006). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 2254(b)(1), a “habeas petitioner must have fairly presented the substance of his claim to the state courts.” Smith v. Dretke, 422 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). This requires submitting the factual and legal basis of every claim to the highest available state court for review. Carter v. Estelle, 677 F.2d 427, 443 (5th Cir. 1982). As the Supreme Court has recently observed, however, “[s]tate prisoners often fail to raise their federal claims in compliance with state procedures,” or even fail to raise them in state court at all. Shinn v. Ramirez, 212 L.Ed.2d 713, 142 S.Ct. 1718, 1732 (2022). “But to allow a state prisoner simply to ignore state procedure on the way to federal court would defeat the evident goal of the exhaustion rule. Thus, federal habeas courts must apply an important corollary to the exhaustion requirement: the doctrine of procedural default.” Id. (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). The doctrine applies here, as any attempt by Chism to return to the state courts now to raise his unexhausted claims would likely be dismissed as a successive writ. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27(9). Nelson v. Davis, 952 F.3d 651, 662 (5th Cir. 2020); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), holding modified by Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012).

Chism can save his procedurally defaulted claims, however, if he can establish both cause for the default and actual prejudice resulting from it, or if he can show that a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” will occur if his claims are not considered.

6

Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750. To establish cause, “there must be something external to the petitioner, something that cannot fairly be attributed to him.” 501 U.S. at 753. To establish prejudice, a petitioner must show that, but for the alleged error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Pickney v. Cain, 337 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2003). Chism makes no attempt to show that either is met here.

Similarly, he does not show that, as a factual matter, he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted or that he would suffer a fundamental miscarriage of justice if the defaulted claims were not considered. The “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception is triggered only “in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986). It requires that the petitioner support such an allegation with new, reliable evidence that was not presented at trial. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). Chism has presented no new evidence here. Accordingly, he has failed to overcome his procedural default and the claims at issue are barred from federal review.

Claims Reviewed on the Merits in State Court

Chism's remaining claims, as discussed below, were...