Clemons v. LeBlanc
Decision Date | 29 December 2020 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1465 SECTION P |
Parties | CHARLES CLEMONS v. JAMES LEBLANC |
Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana |
Petitioner Charles Clemons, a prisoner in the custody of Louisiana's Department of Corrections proceeding pro se, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He attacks the sentence that the Third Judicial District Court, Lincoln Parish, imposed for his second-degree murder conviction. For reasons below, the Court should deny Petitioner's claim and dismiss his Petition.
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal recounted the underlying state court procedural history as follows:
In November of 1976, Charles Clemons ("Clemons") pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence for the first 40 years. In accordance with Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, — U.S. —, 136 S. Ct. 718, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016), Clemons was resentenced to life with parole eligibility. Clemons was granted an out-of-time appeal, and seeks review of his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
State v. Clemons, 289 So. 3d 1165, 1166-67 (La. Ct. App.) (footnotes in original), writ denied, 300 So. 3d 399 (La. 2020).
After the trial court granted Petitioner's motion and amended his sentence, Petitioner appealed, raising the following claims:
Clemons, 289 So. 3d at 1168 (footnotes omitted). On January 15, 2020, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's sentence. Id. at 1170.
On July 31, 2020, the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied Petitioner's subsequent application for writ of certiorari. State v. Clemons, 300 So. 3d 399 (La. 2020).
Petitioner filed this Petition on approximately November 9, 2020,4 claiming: (1) "The trial court deprived [him] his liberty without the due process protection of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee against a disproportionate sentence as required by Miller and Montgomery [sic]"; and (2) his "guilty plea is null and void as a result of Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana's substantive constitutional rule change [sic]." [doc. # 1-1, p. 1].
Federal courts may provide habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Under Section 2254(d), after a state court has adjudicated a prisoner's claims on the merits, an application for a writ of habeas corpus may be granted only if the petitioner shows that the adjudication:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2).
Review under § 2254(d)(1) is "limited to the record that was before the state court." Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). A decision is "contrary to" clearly established law if the state court "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases," or "confronts a set of facts that is materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme Court] but reaches a different result." Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 141 (2005) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)). A decision involves an "unreasonable application" of clearly established law "if the state court applies [the Supreme Court's] precedents to the facts in an objectively unreasonable manner." Id. (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 407-08). "Clearly established law" refers to "the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court's] decisions as of the time of relevant state-court decision." Williams, 529 U.S. at 412.
Section 2254(d)(2) involves a challenge to factual determinations made by state courts. Hoffman v. Cain, 752 F.3d 430, 437 (5th Cir. 2014). Federal courts presume such determinations to be correct; however, a petitioner can rebut this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(1).
A federal court must defer to a state court adjudication on the merits. Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 950 (5th Cir. 2001). "As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). An adjudication is "on the merits" when "the state court resolves the case on substantive grounds, rather than procedural grounds." Id. at 946-47. A federal court reviews de novo a claim not adjudicated on the merits in state court. Hoffman, 752 F.3d at 437.
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial