Dean v. Bobbitt
| Decision Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | CV 116-036 |
| Parties | ANTHONY SCOTT DEAN, Petitioner, v. TREVONZA BOBBITT, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Petitioner, an inmate at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, brings the above-captioned petition, through counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Having considered all the relevant pleadings, for the reasons set forth below, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Petitioner's § 2254 petition be DENIED without an evidentiary hearing, this civil action be CLOSED, and a final judgment be ENTERED in favor of Respondent.
Petitioner seeks habeas relief from his conviction on two counts of child molestation in the Superior Court of Columbia County, Georgia as the result of a jury trial held December 12 to 15, 2011, before the Honorable James G. Blanchard, Jr. Assistant District Attorney D. Parks White represented the State at trial and retained attorney J. Pete Theodocion represented Petitioner. (Doc. no. 10-5, p. 103.) This factual backgrounddescribes Petitioner's trial, motion for new trial, direct appeal, extraordinary motion for new trial, first state habeas petition, second state habeas petition, and the federal habeas petition sub judice.
Petitioner and his wife Renee adopted three sisters from Guatemala named Marline, Silda, and Sindy. Marline is the oldest, Silda is the middle child, and Sindy is the youngest. Silda was thirteen years old at the time of her adoption. (Doc. no. 10-2, p. 2.) The jury found Petitioner guilty of molesting Silda when she was fifteen years old. (Id.) At trial, Silda testified Petitioner came into her bedroom one night, lay down next to her in bed, and touched her genitals. (Doc. no. 10-7, pp. 28-30, 36.) On another occasion, she testified, Petitioner walked into her bathroom wearing a towel, uncovered his penis, and told her he wanted to have sex with her. (Id. at 32-33.) A child abuse investigator, Judy Sanders, testified Silda told her about these events and her disclosure was "consistent with that of a person who has suffered sexual abuse." (Doc. no. 10-6, pp. 35-39.) A forensic interviewer, Kimberly Lee-Branch, testified Silda told her about these events and opined Silda's responses were consistent with a victim of sexual abuse. (Doc. no. 10-7, pp. 89-100.)
Silda testified Petitioner treated Marline "[l]ike she was his girlfriend or his wife," and routinely kissed Marline on the mouth. (Id. at 42-43.) Sindy testified Petitioner would get in bed with Marline and kiss her on the mouth like husband and wife. (Id. at 106-15.) Marline testified Petitioner never touched her inappropriately, attempted to have sexual relations with her, or got into bed with her at night to kiss her. (Doc. no. 10-6, pp. 2-4; doc. no. 10-8, pp. 82-83.) Marline admitted telling a police officer Petitioner tried to have sexwith her but testified it was a lie she told because the officer called her repeatedly. (Doc. no. 10-6, pp. 9-10.) Marline admitted telling other people Petitioner molested her but claimed it was a lie she told to get money. (Doc. no. 10-8, p. 90.) Marline also testified Silda never mentioned her accusations against Petitioner despite their close relationship. (Id. at 84-85.)
Marline testified she denied in a conversation with District Attorney Ashley Wright that Petitioner had ever attempted to commit incest with her, which was relevant because the State had noticed such an attempt as similar transaction evidence. (Id. at 78-79; doc. no. 10-10, pp. 62-64.) Marline further testified District Attorney Wright did not like her response and told Marline she was lying. (Doc. no. 10-8, p. 79.) District Attorney Wright testified in rebuttal she only had a general conversation with Marline at the behest of a juvenile court judge considering Marline's request to meet with her sisters. (Id. at 137-39.) District Attorney Wright testified she explained to Marline they could not discuss Silda's accusations against Petitioner because Silda "is the victim of child molestation, we don't talk about charges pertaining to other people with third parties." (Id. at 136.) When Marline stated nothing inappropriate occurred between her and Petitioner, District Attorney Wright testified she told Marline she would not discuss the matter. (Id.)
Petitioner testified he never touched Silda inappropriately or intentionally took off his towel in front of any of his children. (Id. at 31-33.) Petitioner testified his wife often argued with Marline and Silda, and he had a better relationship with his daughters than did his wife. (Id. at 26-27.) Petitioner further testified Silda's reputation for character and trustworthiness "was a poor one, a bad one." (Id. at 37.)
Twin sisters testified concerning inappropriate sexual conduct by Petitioner during a sleepover in June 1984, when Petitioner was fourteen years old and the sisters were twelve years old. (Doc. no. 10-7, pp. 122-47.) Mrs. Auburn Kennell testified Petitioner awakened her during the night and forcibly placed her hands down his pants. (Id. at 125-27.) Mrs. Amber Shuman testified Petitioner awakened her the same night and fondled her, forcibly placed her hands on his genitals, and ejaculated on her. (Id. at 139-42.) Petitioner explained the activity as a consensual game of "show and tell" between an inexperienced fourteen-year-old boy and two promiscuous twelve and half-year-old girls. (Id. at 34.)
Petitioner's friend, Sarah Scott, testified she sent Marline money when she ran away from Petitioner's home to Mexico, and Marline lived with Ms. Scott at the time of trial. (Doc. no. 10-8, pp. 11-15.) Ms. Scott testified that, when she met with Mrs. Dean, Silda, and Sindy after Marline ran away, Silda and Sindy said the molestation allegations against Petitioner were false. (Id. at 57-59.) When Petitioner arrived for the meeting, both girls greeted Petitioner with open arms, and Silda was the first to hug Petitioner. (Id. at 57-58.) Silda denied telling Ms. Scott and Mrs. Dean that Petitioner had done nothing to her, and she did not recall giving Petitioner a hug or saying she loved him and wanted him to come home. (Id. at 16-17.) Sindy acknowledged she and Silda told Ms. Scott and Mrs. Dean nothing happened, and Petitioner had done nothing wrong, but Sindy said she only made the statements in an effort not to hurt the feelings of Mrs. Dean, who wanted Petitioner to come home. (Id. at 18-19.)
The jury found Petitioner guilty on both charges of molesting Silda. On January 27, 2012, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to two consecutive twenty-year terms ofimprisonment, with Petitioner being eligible for parole during the second term. (Doc. no. 10-10, p. 125.)
Mr. Theodocion filed Petitioner's motion for new trial on February 24, 2012, and at the hearing held on June 15, 2012, Mr. Theodocion argued the trial court erred in: (1) admitting similar transaction evidence concerning Petitioner's conduct with the twin sisters in 1984 because of the distance in time; (2) admitting similar transaction evidence concerning Petitioner's physical relationship with Marline; and (3) refusing to admit Marline's testimony that, when she was eight or nine years old, Silda falsely accused her biological father of drowning her twin brother because she wanted out of her parents' custody. (Id. at 3-20.) The trial court heard testimony from Marline concerning the third alleged error and denied the motion for new trial in its entirety. (Id. at 18-26, 137-38.)
(Id. at 73.) On May 7, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction on both counts. Dean v. State, 742 S.E.2d 758, 759-62 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
On June 21, 2013, Mr. Theodocion filed a state habeas petition in the Superior Court of Tattnall County, citing Silda's recantation and arguing Petitioner's conviction was based "on wholly perjured testimony" in violation of Petitioner's due process rights under the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the United States Constitution. (Doc. no. 10-1, pp. 1-5.) On September 18, 2013, while the state habeas petition was pending, Mr. Theodocion filed an extraordinary motion for new trial, citing the recantation as new evidence and advancing the same due process arguments. (Id. at 76-80.)
The trial court conducted a hearing on Petitioner's extraordinary motion for new trial on October 4, 2013. (Doc. no. 10-11, p. 8.) Silda recanted her trial testimony and explained she falsely accused Petitioner because she wanted to leave his home to get away from Mrs. Dean. (Id. at 13-16.) Silda testified she had not been threatened or promised anything for the recantation letter. (Id. at 17-20.) Silda admitted she was angry with Ms. Laticia Pough, her foster mother, when she wrote the letter because Ms. Pough forbade Silda from dating her boyfriend. (Id. at 26-27.) Once Silda wrote the letter, she moved out of the foster home to live with Mrs. Dean's sister, Leann, who allowed Silda to date her boyfriend. (Id. at 20-21, 27.) Ms. Pough confirmed she forbade Silda from dating her boyfriend, and Silda wanted to leave the...
To continue reading
Request your trial