Copeland v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:18-cv-173-RH-MJF |
| Parties | SHANNON COPELAND, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Petitioner Shannon Copeland has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Respondent ("the State") answered, providing relevant portions of the state court record. (Doc. 19). Copeland replied. (Doc. 23). The undersigned concludes that no evidentiary hearing is required for the disposition of this matter, and that Copeland is not entitled to habeas relief.1
In May 2007, Copeland was arrested in Liberty County, Florida, for resisting arrest with violence (Count 1) and battery on a law enforcement officer by throwing fluids (Count 2). .2 The State filed an information charging Copeland in Liberty County Circuit Court Case No. 2007-CF-60, with resisting arrest with violence. (Attach. 1, Ex. C at 181 (information)). The State declined to pursue the battery charge.
On September 5, 2007, Copeland entered an open plea of "no contest" to the resisting arrest charge. . The trial court accepted Copeland's plea, adjudicated her guilty of resisting arrest with violence, and sentenced her to 113 days in the county jail with credit for 113 days of time served, and a 3-year term of probation with the special conditions that she: (1) have no contact with Michael McGhee; (2) not go to Martin County except to answer outstanding warrants/charges in that county; and (3) comply with recommendations for treatment of her medical condition, including taking her medications. . Copeland did not move to withdraw her plea, did not directly appeal the 2007 judgment and sentence, and did not seek collateral review of her conviction.
On January 1, 2009, Copeland was released from the Florida Department of Corrections after serving the incarceration portion of a sentence imposed by the Martin County Circuit Court in Case No. 2006-CF-1858. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 13-21 (); see also Exs. M-N (Martin County documents)). That same day, Copeland's probation officer directed her to report to the probation office in Quincy, Florida, on January 5, 2009. (Id.). On January 6, 2009, the State filed a probation violation report alleging that Copeland violated her probation by failing to report as directed by the probation officer. (Attach. B at 13-15). An additional VOP charge was added on January 12, 2009, alleging that Copeland changed her residence without procuring the consent of her probation officer. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 17-21).
Copeland was arrested on the VOP charges on July 2, 2009. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 22-23). Copeland was appointed counsel, and a VOP hearing was scheduled for September 1, 2009. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 7-8 (docket sheet), Ex. B at 24 (order appointing counsel)). The VOP hearing was continued several times while Copeland resolved pending VOCC charges for violating her community control in Martin County Case No. 2006-CF-1858. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 8, 25).
On May 3, 2010, the court in Liberty County was notified that Copeland was sentenced to prison on the Martin County VOCC charges. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 8 (docket sheet); see also Attach. 4, Exs. N, O (Martin County VOCC judgments (original and resentencing)). The Liberty County court scheduled a VOP hearing for July 7, 2010. (Id.). At the July 7, 2010, hearing, the court removed the case from the docket and lodged a detainer against Copeland to secure her presence for disposition of the VOP charges once she was released from prison. (See Attach. 1, Ex. B at 8 (docket sheet)).
On July 14, 2013, Copeland filed a pro se "Motion for Relief" in her Liberty County case requesting "final disposition" of the VOP charges. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 29-30). On August 20, 2013, the court appointed counsel to represent Copeland and set the matter for a case management conference. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 31).
In the meantime, on August 14, 2013, Copeland filed a pro se state habeas petition in the Liberty County Circuit Court. (Attach. 2-3, Ex. H). The court opened a new case file and assigned Case No. 2013-CA-169. (Attach. 2, Ex. H at 1). On December 5, 2013, the state court construed Copeland's petition as seeking relief from the detainer lodged against her in her criminal case (Case No. 2007-CF-60). (Attach. 3, Ex. K at 1). The state habeas court took judicial notice of the fact that the State was "now actively prosecuting Petitioner on the charges in Case 07CF60," and that the docket in that case "also reflects that on July 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion for Relief seeking similar relief, disposition of the probation violation charges." (Attach. 3, Ex. K at 1-2). The court concluded that Copeland's petition was "mooted by the prosecution of the charges," and ordered that the habeas case be closed. (Id. at 2). Copeland filed a notice of appeal from that order. (Attach. 3, Ex. L at 1). On January 7, 2014, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ("First DCA") ordered Copeland to file a copy of the order being appealed. (Attach. 3, Ex. L at 2). On April 4, 2014, after Copeland failed to comply, the First DCA dismissed the appeal for Copeland's failure to comply with that court's orders and her failure to file a copy of the order being appealed. (Attach. 3, Ex. L at 5).
On September 12, 2016, the Liberty County Circuit Court held a VOP hearing where Copeland entered a counseled, open admission to the VOP charges. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 103-04 (), Ex. B at 148-65 (VOP hearing transcript)). After a colloquy, the trial court determined that Copeland's admission to the violations was intelligently and voluntarily made, accepted Copeland's admission, adjudicated her guilty of violating her probation, revoked her probation, and sentenced her to 24 months of imprisonment to run consecutive to her Martin County sentence. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 105-113 (VOP judgment); see also Ex. B at 116 (order revoking probation)).
On September 13, 2016, Copeland filed a counseled motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), seeking jail credit of 4 months and 4 days on her VOP sentence. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 99-102). On October 6, 2016, Copeland, on her own behalf, filed a "Motion to Withdraw Plea," in which she sought to withdraw her admission to the probation violations on the grounds that (1) she was promised her VOP sentence would not involve "consecutive time," (2) she was not guilty of the violations or of the original crime of resisting arrest with violence, and (3) her VOP sentence was excessive. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 133-34). Copeland also filed, on her own behalf, a notice of appeal from the VOP judgment and sentence. (Attach. 1, Ex. B at 142).
On December 9, 2016, the court held a hearing on Copeland's Rule 3.800 motion and awarded her the additional jail credit. (Attach. 1, Ex. C at 206 (order); see also Ex. C at 207-12 (motion hearing transcript)). The court denied Copeland's motion to withdraw her plea due to her having filed a notice of appeal. (Attach. 1, Ex. C at 210-11).
Copeland pursued her VOP appeal with the assistance of counsel. (Attach. 7, Ex. AA, (initial brief), Ex. CC (reply brief)). On November 29, 2017, the First DCA affirmed the VOP judgment and sentence per curiam without written opinion. Copeland v. State, 237 So. 3d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (Table) .
Copeland filed her federal habeas petition on March 6, 2018, raising four claims. (Doc. 1). The State asserts that each claim fails for one or more of the following reasons: (1) the allegations do not state a discernible basis for habeas relief; (2) the claim is unexhausted and procedurally defaulted; (3) Copeland fails to meet § 2254(d)'s demanding standard; and (4) the claim is refuted by the record and therefore fails on de novo review. (Doc. 19).
A federal court "shall not" grant a habeas corpus petition on any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court's decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The United States Supreme Court explained the framework for § 2254 review in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).3 Justice O'Connor described the appropriate test:
Under the "contrary to" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the "unreasonable application" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.
Id., 529 U.S. at 412-13 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
Under the Williams framework, the federal court must first determine the "clearly established Federal law," namely, "the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court render[ed] its decision." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 (2003). After identifying the governing legal principle, the federal court determines whether the state court's adjudication is contrary to the clearly established Supreme Court case law. The adjudication is "contrary" only if...
To continue reading
Request your trial