Crawford v. Sec'y

• Decision Date: 24 March 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:14-cv-847-J-39PDB
• Parties: ZAYNUS CLIFFORD CRAWFORD, III, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

ZAYNUS CLIFFORD CRAWFORD, III, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,AND FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents.

Case No. 3:14-cv-847-J-39PDB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

March 24, 2017

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner challenges a 2013 Clay County conviction for aggravated assault (deadly weapon). See Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Petition) (Doc. 1). In the Petition, he raises thirteen grounds for habeas relief, but he has abandoned the thirteenth ground, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Order (Doc. 23). In the twelve remaining grounds, Petitioner raises the following: (1) a claim of denial of due process of law asserting his Miranda¹ warnings were not read to him; (2) a claim of lack of probable cause to arrest him; (3) a claim of an equal protection violation based on actual innocence; (4) a claim of racialdiscrimination; (5) a claim of denial of due process of law asserting he acted in self-defense; (6) a claim of spousal immunity; (7) a claim of a Brady² violation based on the state's alleged failure to disclose Petitioner's ripped shirt and scratches; (8) a claim of denial of due process of law based on the state's constructive amendment of the information by stating that Petitioner could be found guilty of the lesser included offense of improper exhibition of a firearm or dangerous weapon; (9) a claim of an improper jury instruction requiring unanimity, without providing room for individual decisions and without giving an Allen charge; (10) a claim of prosecutorial misconduct; (11) a claim of judicial misconduct; and (12) a claim of altered transcripts.

Respondents filed an Answer in Response to Order to Show Cause (Response) (Doc. 24). In support of their Response, they submitted Exhibits (Doc. 24).³ Petitioner filed a Reply to Respondents' Answer to Order to Show Cause (Reply) (Doc. 25). See Order (Doc. 5). Respondents urge this Court to deny the Petition. Response at 8-28. The Court will address the twelve remaining grounds, SeeClisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992), but no evidentiary proceedings are required in this Court.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) governs a state prisoner's federal petition for habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Ledford v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic & Classification Prison, 818 F.3d 600, 642 (11th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed, - U.S. - (U.S. Oct. 14, 2016) (No. 16-6444). "'The purpose of AEDPA is to ensure that federal habeas relief functions as a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, and not as a means of error correction.'" Id. (quoting Greene v. Fisher, 132 S.Ct. 38, 43 (2011)).

Under AEDPA, when a state court has adjudicated the petitioner's claim on the merits, a federal court may not grant habeas relief 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 of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding," id. § 2254(d)(2). A state court's factual findings are presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.[⁴] Id. § 2254(e)(1); Ferrell v. Hall, 640 F.3d 1199, 1223 (11th Cir. 2011)...."It bears repeating that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable." [Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011)] (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003)). The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed lower federal courts that an unreasonable application of law requires more than mere error or even clear error. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 18, 124 S.Ct. 7, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003); Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75 ("The gloss of clear error fails to give proper deference to state courts by conflating error (even clear error) with unreasonableness."); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ("[A]n unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.").

Bishop v. Warden, GDCP, 726 F.3d 1243, 1253-54 (11th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 67 (2014).

In applying AEDPA deference, the first step is to identify the last state court decision that evaluated the claim on its merits. See Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. granted, 2017 WL 737820 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2017); Marshall v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 828 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2016). Regardless of whether the last state court provided a reasoned opinion, "it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary." Richter, 562 U.S. at 99; see also Johnson v. Williams, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 1096 (2013).

Where the last adjudication on the merits is "'unaccompanied by an explanation,' a petitioner's burden under section 2254(d) is to 'show [ ] there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.'" Wilson, 834 F.3d at 1235 (quoting Richter, 562 U.S. at 98). "[A] habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or, as here, could have supported, the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of [the] Court." Richter, 562 U.S. at 102; see also Wilson, 834 F.3d at 1235; Marshall, 828 F.3d at 1285. To determine which theories could have supported the state appellate court's decision, the federal habeas court may look to a state trial court's previous opinion as one example of a reasonable application of law or determination of fact; however, the federal habeas court is not limited to assessing the reasoning of the lower court. Wilson, 834 F.3d at 1239. As such,

even when the opinion of a lower state court contains flawed reasoning, [AEDPA] requires that [the federal court] give the last state court to adjudicate the prisoner's claim on the merits "the benefit of the doubt," Renico [v. Lett, 449 U.S. 766, 733 (2010)] (quoting [Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002)] ), and presume that it "follow[ed] the law," [Woods v. Donald, --- U.S. ----, 135 U.S. 1372, 1376 (2015)] (quoting Visciotti, 537 U.S. at 24).

Wilson at 1238; see also Williams, 133 S.Ct. at 1101 (Scalia, J., concurring).

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the Response at 1-2, Respondents provide a brief procedural history:

Petitioner was convicted of two offenses in the Florida Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Clay County.[⁵] (Ex. A.) Petitioner appealed to the First District, which per curiam affirmed his conviction on May 20, 2014. (Ex. B); Crawford v. State, 139 So.3d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA May 20, 2014). The First District issued its mandate on June 17, 2014. (Ex. B).

On January 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court, which that court transferred to the First District on April 24, 2014, which that court dismissed for failure to comply with orders of that court on May 29, 2014. (Exs. C, D.)

On September 17, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel in the First District, which was denied on the merits on October 21, 2014. (Ex. E); Crawford v. State, - So.3d -, 2014 WL 5335291 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 21, 2014).

Petitioner has filed no other requests for post-conviction relief. (Ex. A.) Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 17, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

In his Reply, Petitioner contends that he is actually innocent of aggravated assault, and his conviction constitutes a miscarriage of justice. Reply at 1-2.

IV. EXHAUSTION AND PROCEDURAL DEFAULT

There are prerequisites to a federal habeas review. Respondents assert that Petitioner failed to properly exhaust the remaining twelve grounds. Response at 5-27. In addressing the question of exhaustion, this Court must ask whether Petitioner's claim was properly raised in the state court proceedings:

Before seeking § 2254 habeas relief in federal court, a petitioner must exhaust all state court remedies available for challenging his conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). For a federal claim to be exhausted, the petitioner must have "fairly presented [it] to the state courts." McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court has suggested that a litigant could do so by including in his claim before the state appellate court "the federal source of law on which he relies or a case deciding such a claim on federal grounds, or by simply labeling the claim 'federal.'" Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32, 124 S.Ct. 1347, 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004). The Court's guidance in Baldwin "must be applied with common sense and in light of the purpose underlying the exhaustion requirement"—namely, giving the state courts "a meaningful opportunity" to address the federal claim. McNair, 416 F.3d at 1302. Thus, a petitioner could not satisfy the exhaustion requirement merely by presenting the state court with "all the facts necessary to support the claim," or by making a "somewhat similar state-law claim." Kelley,377 F.3d at 1343-44. Rather, he must make his claims in a manner that provides the state courts with "the opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon (his) [federal] constitutional claim." Id. at 1344 (quotation omitted).

Lucas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 682 F.3d 1342, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 875 (2013).

Respondents urge this Court to find that all twelve grounds are procedurally defaulted. The Court is mindful that the doctrine of procedural...