Draper v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., Case No. 3:17-cv-750-J-39MCR

• Decision Date: 11 July 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:17-cv-750-J-39MCR
• Parties: TIMOTHY C. DRAPER, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

TIMOTHY C. DRAPER, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.

Case No. 3:17-cv-750-J-39MCR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

July 11, 2019

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, an inmate of the Florida penal system proceeding pro se, challenges his state court (St. Johns County) conviction through a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Petition) (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is serving a twelve-year prison sentence (aggravated assault with a firearm; false imprisonment; aggravated battery with a deadly weapon) to be followed by eight years of probation (possession of a firearm by a convicted felon). Petition at 1. Respondents filed a Response to Petition (Response) (Doc. 12).¹ Petitioner notified the Court he does not intend tofile a reply (Doc. 14). The Petition is timely filed. See Response at 8-9.

II. EVIDENTIARY HEARING

The pertinent facts are fully developed in this record or the record otherwise precludes habeas relief; therefore, the Court is able to "adequately assess [Petitioner's] claim[s] without further factual development," Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1034 (2004). As the record refutes the asserted factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, the Court finds Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating a need for an evidentiary hearing, particularly since an evidentiary hearing was conducted in state court on several post conviction claims. See Chavez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir. 2011) (opining a petitioner bears the burden of establishing the need for an evidentiary hearing with more than speculative and inconcrete claims of need), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1120 (2012).

III. CLAIMS OF PETITION

Petitioner raises five grounds in his Petition. In grounds one through three, he raises claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He claims trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) "failing to disclose to the court and the defendant the currentcompetency issues regarding the state[']s key witness[;]" (2) "failing to motion the trial court for defense D.N.A. expert affirmatively misleading defendant that he was not eligible for D.N.A. expert due to the economy[;] and (3) "failing to inform the court that the ordered mental health evaluation to determine defendant's competency to stand trial had never been done[,]" depriving Petitioner of a fair trial.² Petition at 4, 6, & 7-8.

In his fourth ground, Petitioner claims the post conviction court committed reversible error "when it failed to conduct an adequate Faretta³ hearing prior to allowing defendant to represent himself during the evidentiary hearing[,]" depriving Petitioner of his rights under the Due Process Clause. Petition at 9. Finally, in his fifth ground, Petitioner claims his "conviction was illegally obtained when the court accepted Petitioner's plea using a legally insufficient plea colloquy." Id. at 11.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) governs a state prisoner's federal petition for habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This statute "imposes important limitations on the power of federal courts to overturn the judgments of statecourts in criminal cases." Shoop v. Hill, 139 S.Ct. 504, 506 (2019) (per curiam). The AEDPA statute: "respects the authority and ability of state courts and their dedication to the protection of constitutional rights." Id. Therefore, "[u]nder AEDPA, error is not enough; even clear error is not enough." Meders v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 911 F.3d 1335, 1349 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Virginia v. LeBlanc, 137 S.Ct. 1726, 1728 (2017) (per curiam)).

Applying the statute as amended by AEDPA, federal courts may not grant habeas relief unless one of the claims: "(1)'was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,' or (2) 'was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.' 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)." Nance v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 922 F.3d 1298, 1300-1301 (11th Cir. 2019).

Thus, in order to obtain habeas relief, the state court decision must unquestionably conflict with Supreme Court precedent. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011). If some fair-minded jurists could agree with the lower court's decision, habeas relief must be denied. Meders, 911 F.3d at 1351. As noted in Richter, unless the petitioner shows the state court's ruling was so lacking in justification that there was error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement, there is no entitlement to habeas relief. Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 19-20 (2013).

In undertaking its review, this Court is not obliged "to flyspeck the state court order or grade it." Meders, 911 F.3d at 1349. Indeed, specificity and thoroughness of the state court decision is not required; even if the state court fails to provide rationale or reasoning, AEDPA deference is due "absent a conspicuous misapplication of Supreme Court precedent." Id. at 1350 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Of importance, a state court's finding of fact, whether a state trial court or appellate court, is entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). But, this presumption of correctness applies only to findings of fact, not mixed determinations of law and fact. Brannan v. GDCP Warden, 541 F. App'x 901, 903-904 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (recognizing the distinction between a pure question of fact from a mixed question of law and fact), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 906 (2014).

Where there has been one reasoned state court judgment rejecting a federal claim followed by an unexplained order upholding that judgement, federal habeas courts employ a "look through" presumption: "the federal court should 'look through' the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale. It should then presume that theunexplained decision adopted the same reasoning." Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018) (Wilson).

Once a claim is adjudicated in state court and a prisoner seeks relief in the federal court system, AEDPA's formidable barrier to habeas relief comes into play, and it is very difficult for a petitioner to prevail under this stringent standard. As such, state-court judgments will not easily be set aside once the Court employs this highly deferential standard that is intentionally difficult to meet. See Richter, 562 U.S. at 102. Although AEDPA does not impose a complete bar to issuing a writ, it severely limits those occasions to those "where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts" with Supreme Court precedent. Id. In sum, application of the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) ensures that habeas corpus is a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, and not a mechanism for ordinary error correction. Richter, 562 U.S. at 102-103 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

V. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Petitioner raises three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on his Sixth Amendment claims, Petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), requiring that he show both deficient performance (counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness) and prejudice (there is a reasonableprobability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different). See Brewster v. Hetzel, 913 F.3d 1042, 1051-52 (11th Cir. 2019) (reviewing court may begin with either component).

In order to obtain habeas relief, a counsel's errors must be so great that they actually adversely effect the defense. In order to satisfy this prejudice prong, the reasonable probability of a different result must be "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.

The standard created by Strickland is a highly deferential standard, requiring a most deferential review of counsel's decisions. Richter, 562 U.S. at 105. Not only is there the "Strickland mandated one layer of deference to the decisions of trial counsel[,]" there is the added layer of deference required by AEDPA: the one to a state court's decision. Nance, 922 F.3d at 1303. Thus,

Given the double deference due, it is a "rare case in which an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was denied on the merits in state court is found to merit relief in a federal habeas proceeding." Johnson v. Sec'y, DOC, 643 F.3d 907, 911 (11th Cir. 2011). And, for the reasons we have already discussed, it is rarer still for merit to be found in a claim that challenges a strategic decision of counsel.

Nance, 922 F.3d at 1303.

VI. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Ground One

In ground one, Petitioner claims the ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to disclose to the court and the defendant the competency issues of the state's key witness, Lisa Pressley. Petitioner raised this claim in his Rule 3.850 motion, Ex. Q at 22-25, and the circuit court addressed this ground after conducting an evidentiary hearing. Ex. S. In its order, the circuit court set forth the two-pronged Strickland standard before addressing the grounds for relief. Ex. T at 179-81.

The circuit court, in addressing the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, considered evidentiary hearing testimony. Id. at 181. The court found trial counsel's, Ms. Barger's testimony credible. Id. at 183-84. The court also found Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Barger was ineffective for failing to challenge Ms....