Daniels v. Minnesota
| Decision Date | 13 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-807 (ECT/LIB) |
| Parties | Antonio Xavier Daniels, Petitioner, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general referral made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1 as well as, upon Petitioner Antonio Xavier Daniels' Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254. [Docket No. 1].
For the reasons discussed herein, this Court recommends that the Petition for writ of habeas corpus, [Docket No. 1], be DENIED, and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice. The undersigned further recommends declining to issue a certificate of appealability.
In 2013, Petitioner was charged with second-degree intentional murder in Minnesota state court. See, Daniels v. State, No. A17-0623, 2018 WL 817286, at *3 (Minn.Ct.App. Feb. 12, 2018), review denied (Apr. 25, 2018). Petitioner pled not guilty, and he presented a defense of self-defense. (Pet., [Docket No. 1], at 1). In support of his defense, Petitioner asserted that, although he shot into the direction of a group of men during a physical altercation involving himself, his friends, and said group of men, he did so as a “scare tactic” because he feared for his safety and the safety of his friends. Daniels, 2018 WL 817286, at *1-3; see, State v Daniels, No. 27-cr-13-27736, 2015 WL 4393108, at *2, *4 (Minn. Dist. Ct. June 30, 2015). The gunshot fired by Petitioner resulted in the death of one of the men in the other group, but Petitioner maintained that he did not intend to cause the decedent's death. Daniels, 2018 WL 817286, at *1-3.
Following a jury trial, the state “district court granted [Petitioner's] request to provide a jury instruction on second-degree manslaughter, and the state's request for an instruction on second-degree felony murder.” Daniels, 2018 WL 817286, at *3 (citations omitted). The state trial court also granted Petitioner's request for a “self-defense instruction.” Id. The state “district court instructed the jury on self-defense based on the standard instruction for self-defense-justifiable taking of life.” Daniels v. State, No. A19-1279, 2020 WL 2118897, at *1 , review denied (Sept. 15, 2020).
Ultimately, the jury found Petitioner guilty of second-degree felony murder and second-degree manslaughter. Pet. [Docket No. 1]; Daniels v. State, No. A17-0623, 2018 WL 817286, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. Feb. 12, 2018). Petitioner was found not guilty of second-degree intentional murder. Id. “On June 30, 2015, the [state] district court sentenced [Petitioner] for second-degree felony murder to a 180-month prison sentence with 676 days of credit and entered a conviction on the second-degree manslaughter charge, noting ‘[s]entence combined with' the other count.” Daniels v. State, 2020 WL 2118897, at *1.
Petitioner then filed a state court petition for postconviction relief. After the denial of his state court petition for postconviction relief, he appealed his conviction and the denial of his petition for postconviction relief “arguing that his conviction should be reversed, or in the alternative that he” should “receive a new trial because (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated, (2) he received ineffective assistance of [trial] counsel, (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct, (4) the jury verdict” was “legally inconsistent, and (5) the evidence [was] insufficient to support his conviction for second-degree felony murder.” Daniels v. State, No. A17-0623, 2018 WL 817286, at *3 (Minn.Ct.App. Feb. 12, 2018).
In support of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel argument, Petitioner asserted that “his [trial] attorney should have moved to dismiss the charges or requested a Florence hearing when, on the first day of trial, the state” allegedly “‘announced new evidence' showing that” Petitioner “acted in self-defense and that the state's witnesses were the first aggressors”; that “his [trial] counsel should have subpoenaed D.T. to testify at trial because he was present throughout the altercation and could have provided exculpatory evidence”; that his trial counsel improperly “failed to use evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the state's witness[es] to impeach their credibility”; and that “his trial attorney [improperly] failed to challenge late discovery disclosures by the state.” Id. at *5-*7. Petitioner also argued that, pursuant to the “felony murder rule, ” his jury verdict was “legally inconsistent because second-degree manslaughter requires some form of intent while second-degree felony murder is a crime committed ‘without the intent to effect the death of any person.'” Id. at *8.
Although the Court found it “trouble[ing] that the record contain[ed] no explanation of [Petitioner's] counsel's decision not to call” D.T. “as a trial witness, ” the Minnesota Court of Appeals ultimately rejected each of Petitioner's arguments regarding his ineffective assistance of trial counsel argument. Id. at *5-*7.
The Court also rejected Petitioner's argument that his convictions were legally inconsistent. Id. at *8-*9. The Court, relying solely on Minnesota state law, explained that while the “‘felony murder rule' allows one whose conduct brought about an unintentional death in the commission of a felony to be guilty of murder by imputing malice when there is no specific intent to kill, ” “[l]ack of intent is not an element of second-degree felony murder.” Id. at *9. On the other hand, “[s]econd-degree manslaughter requires a mental state of culpable negligence” which “is defined as ‘recklessness,' which is ‘intentional conduct which the actor may not intend to be harmful but which an ordinary and reasonably prudent man would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others.'” Id. at *9. The Court explained that “neither felony murder nor second-degree manslaughter required that the jury find that [Petitioner] specifically intended to cause [decedent's] death.” Id. Thus, the Court concluded that “[b]ecause the mental states for” the two crimes of which Petitioner was convicted “are not mutually exclusive and the necessary elements of the crimes do not negate each other, . . . the postconviction court did not err in determining that the jury's verdict finding [Petitioner] guilty of both felony murder and second-degree manslaughter is not legally inconsistent.” Id.
After rejecting each of Petitioner's arguments, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions.
Thereafter, Petitioner sought review from the Minnesota Supreme Court. In his petition for review at the Minnesota Supreme Court, Petitioner's counsel framed the issue for review to be as follows:
(Pet. for Review of Decision of Court of Appeals, [Docket No. 7], at 6-14). In summarizing his argument as to why the petition for review by the Minnesota Supreme Court should be granted, Petitioner asserted that the “Minnesota Court of Appeals erroneously applied an ‘inconsistent-verdict' on the Petitioner's conviction of the lesser-included felony murder-that Petitioner killed” the decedent “while using a deadly weapon; however, the facts supported a self-defense instruction based upon the circumstance at the time of the firing of the firearm, and to which the Jury acquitted the Defendant of intentional murder in the second degree.” (Id.).
On April 25, 2018, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review of Petitioner's case. Daniels v. State, No. A17-623, Order (Minn. Apr. 25, 2018). Thereafter, on May 2, 2018, the Minnesota Court of Appeals enter final judgment in Petitioner's criminal case. Daniels v. State, No. A17-0623, Judgement .
On March 21, 2019, Petitioner initiated the present proceeding by filing his pro se Petition for writ of habeas corpus, [Docket No. 1], challenging the constitutionality of his current term of confinement. In his Petition, Daniels asserts a single claim for relief: “[i]neffective assistance of [c]ounsel.” (Pet., [Docket No. 1], at 5). Where the form-Petition instructed Petitioner to provide the “[s]upporting facts, ” Petitioner wrote “[d]id not apply ‘rule' to bar a felony murder conviction [i]n self-defense case unintentional”; “[d]id not assume ‘Presumption of Innocence' [r]ule” which Petitioner argues requires the state court to sentence him to a term of imprisonment consistent with the “least” offense of which he was convicted; and “[d]id not call viable witness to testify.” (Id.). Later in his Petition, Daniels alludes to a separate argument based on his belief that the state trial court provided an improper jury instruction consistent with Pollard v. State, 900 N.W.2d 175 (Minn.Ct.App. July 10, 2017). (See, Pet., [Docket No. 1], at 14).
Petitioner candidly acknowledged, in his Petition, that at least two of his claims for relief in support of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim had not been exhausted in state court at the time he filed his initial Petition. (Petition [Docket No. 1], at 5-7). Petitioner asserted that he was “attempting to file a Post-Conviction Motion to address the self-defense CRIMJIG error, and the right to be sentenced to least conviction.” (...
To continue reading
Request your trial