Donson v. Jones
Decision Date | 02 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:13cv159/MCR/CJK |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Parties | ANTHONY JEROME DONSON, Petitioner, v. JULIE L. JONES, Respondent. |
Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Respondent filed an answer, submitting relevant portions of the state court record. (Doc. 12). Petitioner replied. (Doc. 20). The matter is referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B). After careful consideration of all issues raised by petitioner, the undersigned concludes that no evidentiary hearing is required for the disposition of this matter. Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The undersigned further concludes thatthe pleadings and attachments before the court show that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief, and that the petition should be denied.
Arrested June 24, 2009, petitioner was charged by Information filed in Escambia County Circuit Court Case No. 09-CF-2930, with knowingly selling, manufacturing, or delivering, or possessing with the intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, cocaine in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a). . 2 Petitioner went to trial (Ex. C), and a jury found him guilty as charged. (Ex. C, p. 200; Ex. F). By judgment rendered January 29, 2010, petitioner was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. (Exs. F, G). Petitioner's judgment of conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, per curiam and without a written opinion, on April 26, 2011. Donson v. State, 63 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (Table) (copy at Ex. L).
On September 28, 2011, petitioner filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. (Ex. N). The state circuit court summarily denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. (Ex. O). The Florida First District Court of Appeal ("First DCA") per curiam affirmed with a written opinion. Donson v. State, 99 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (copy at Ex. S). The mandate issued November 27, 2012. (Ex. S).
On April 4, 2012, petitioner filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). (Ex. T). The state circuit court denied the motion on April 16, 2012. (Ex. U). The First DCA affirmed, per curiam and without a written opinion, on July 31, 2012. Donson v. State, 94 So. 3d 585 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (Table) (copy at Ex. X). The mandate issued August 28, 2012. (Ex. X).
Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition in this court on April 6, 2013. (Doc. 1). The petition raises four claims. Respondent asserts that each claim fails for one or more of the following reasons: (1) the claim is procedurally defaulted; (2) the claim presents a state law issue not cognizable on federal habeas review; (3) the state courts' rejection of the claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and did not involve an unreasonable determination of the facts. (Doc. 12, pp. 8-44).
Federal habeas relief is available to correct only constitutional injury. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011) ; Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 479-80, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991) ( ); Tejada v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551, 1560 (11th Cir. 1991) () (quoting Carrizales v. Wainwright, 699 F.2d1053 (11th Cir. 1983)). "This limitation on federal habeas review is of equal force when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is couched in terms of equal protection and due process." Branan v. Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988).
Before bringing a § 2254 habeas action in federal court, a petitioner must exhaust all available state court remedies for challenging his conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1),3 thereby giving the state the "'opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights." Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S. Ct. 887, 130 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1995) (quoting Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S. Ct. 509, 30 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1971) (citation omitted)). The petitioner "must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1999);Picard, 404 U.S. at 277-78. A claim that was not presented to the state court and which can no longer be litigated under state procedural rules is considered procedurally defaulted, i.e., procedurally barred from federal review. O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 839-40, 848, 119 S. Ct. 1728; Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 1999); Chambers v. Thompson, 150 F.3d 1324, 1326-27 (11th Cir. 1998) ( ).
A petitioner seeking to overcome a procedural default must show cause and prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Tower v. Phillips, 7 F.3d 206, 210 (11th Cir. 1993). "For cause to exist, an external impediment, whether it be governmental interference or the reasonable unavailability of the factual basis for the claim, must have prevented petitioner from raising the claim." McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 497, 111 S. Ct. 1454, 113 L. Ed. 2d 517 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S. Ct. 2639, 91 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1986)). The miscarriage of justice exception requires the petitioner to show that "a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent." Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S. Ct. 85, 130 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1995). "To establish the requisite probability, the petitioner must show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him." Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327. Further:
Federal courts may issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Pub. L. 104-132, § 104, 110 Stat. 1214, 1218-19. Section 2254(d) provides, in relevant part:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (2011).
The United States Supreme Court explained the framework for § 2254 review in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000).4 The appropriate test was described by Justice O'Connor as follows:
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).
Employing the Williams framework, on any issue raised in a federal habeas petition upon which there has been an adjudication on the merits in a state court proceeding, the federal court must first ascertain 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, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003). The law is "clearly established" only when a Supreme Court holding at the time of the state court decision embodies the legal principle at issue. Thaler v. Haynes, 559 U.S. 43, 47, 130 S. Ct. 1171, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1003 (2010); Bowles v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 608 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010).
After identifying the governing...
To continue reading
Request your trial