Fields v. Payne

• Decision Date: 06 March 2023
• Docket Number: 4:20-cv-00351-KGB-PSH
• Parties: ROBERT JAMAR FIELDS PETITIONER v. DEXTER PAYNE RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

1

ROBERT JAMAR FIELDS PETITIONER v. DEXTER PAYNE RESPONDENT

No. 4:20-cv-00351-KGB-PSH

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Central Division

March 6, 2023

RECOMMENDATION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

DISPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION.

In this case, petitioner Robert Jamar Fields [“Fields”] challenges his convictions by means of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. He raises five claims in the petition. First, he is actually innocent. Second, Fields' right to due process was violated when the prosecution suppressed the identity of a perpetrator. Third, Fields' right to due process was violated when the prosecution allowed a witness to give false testimony. Fourth, Fields' right to due process was violated when the prosecution withheld evidence that one of the victims was working as a confidential informant. Last, Fields failed to receive effective assistance of counsel. It is recommended that the petition be dismissed. The claims are without merit were reasonably adjudicated by the state courts, are procedurally barred from federal court review, or otherwise cannot be considered.

II. BACKGROUND.

On June 20, 2015, Jennifer New [“New”], Blake Pepper [“Pepper”], and their child were robbed at gunpoint by three men, one of whom New and Pepper recognized but only knew as “Dee” or “D.” During the robbery, New was shot in the leg. An investigation failed to identify any suspects.

New eventually came to believe that Fields was one of the men who participated in the robbery. New also came to believe that she had been shot by Fields. The information was reported to law enforcement officers, and Fields was charged in an Arkansas state trial court with offenses arising from his involvement in the robbery and shooting.

III. STATE AND FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Fields was tried on July 26, 2017, a trial during which he was represented by Daren Nelson [“Attorney Nelson”]. See Docket Entry 78-2 [Exhibit A1] and 78-3 [Exhibit A2]. Fields was identified by New as the person who shot her. Pepper, though, was unable to identify Fields as one of the assailants. Sergeant Scott Harwell [“Sergeant Harwell”] testified that “Dee” or “D” had come to be identified as Markeitheon Dee Turner [“Turner”] and expected Turner to be charged for his involvement in the robbery and shooting. The trial concluded when the jury convicted Fields.

Fields appealed his convictions. The claims he raised on appeal included the following: the trial court erred by denying a motion in limine to exclude New's pre-trial identification of Fields, the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to misstate the law with respect to parole eligibility, and the trial court erred by failing to exercise its discretion in sentencing Fields to consecutive terms of imprisonment.

During the course of Fields' direct appeal, Turner pleaded guilty to offenses arising from his involvement in the robbery and shooting. During a November 9, 2017, change of plea/sentencing hearing, Turner was asked about his role in the incident, a question that gave rise to the following exchange:

THE COURT: Tell me your role in all that.

MR. TURNER: I really can't remember. I was under the influence of drugs.

THE COURT: This involved the couple?

MR. ROGERS: Yes, Your Honor, the couple that were parked in their own driveway, Mr. Pepper and Ms. New. It was three individuals, Robert Fields, this defendant who was mentioned repeatedly in the trial of Mr. Fields.

THE COURT: He was the only one that they knew.

MR. ROGERS: The only identification was this person and then in the course of a contact with them sitting in their own driveway a shot was fired into the vehicle. I don't recall the items that were stolen ... a cell phone and some clothes. There was a bag that they took because they suspected there may have been some marijuana in it, but it was just a bag of clothes. Ms. New sustained a serious leg injury as a result of the bullet. It required extensive medical care.

THE COURT: Is any of that coming back to you?

MR. TURNER: A little bit.

THE COURT: Which part?

MR. TURNER: I can't really remember.

MR. BEST: Do you remember them coming up in the driveway?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

THE COURT: You were in the driveway?

MR. TURNER: Yes, sir.

MR. ROGERS: He walked around from behind the house as I recall the testimony.

THE COURT: What do you recall about that night?

MR. TURNER: I can't remember.

THE COURT: Do you dispute the State's evidence?

MR. TURNER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You do?

MR. BEST: Do you agree they would be able to prove that were there? [Sic]

MR. TURNER: I agree.

THE COURT: All right, I'll accept your plea and it will be the judgment of the Court that you are in fact guilty of robbery as an accomplis and as an accomplis to the battery in the first degree. I think it was the co-defendant that did the shooting. [Sic].

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Fields was the shooter.

See Docket Entry 67-2 [Exhibit 17] at CM/ECF 6-7.

During the course of Fields' direct appeal, he filed a trial court petition for writ of error coram nobis with the assistance of attorneys Michael Kaiser and William James [“Attorneys Kaiser and James”]. In an amended petition, see Docket Entry 66-2 [Exhibit 8], Fields maintained that his convictions should be set aside for two reasons. First, Fields is actually innocent because on November 22, 2017, Turner signed an affidavit in which, inter alia, he admitted participating in the robbery and shooting with Derek Brown [“Brown”] and an unidentified third person. See Docket Entry 59-3 [Exhibit 1]. Turner represented that Brown had shot New and that Fields was not involved in the incident. Second, Fields' right to due process was violated when the prosecution suppressed Turner's identity.

Fields also filed a state appellate court motion to stay briefing in his direct appeal and reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court. He asked that jurisdiction be reinvested in the trial court so that it could consider his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Arkansas Court of Appeals granted the motion and reinvested jurisdiction in the trial court.

The trial court thereafter conducted a hearing on Fields' petition for writ of error coram nobis, a hearing during which Fields, Attorney Nelson, Turner, and Sergeant Harwell testified. Turner was questioned about his affidavit, and he testified, in part, as follows:

Q. When you plead guilty the name Robert Fields was mentioned in your plea, but you didn't say anything about him not being involved at that time isn't that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You stated you couldn't remember, you were under the influence of drugs?

A. Yes, sir, it's been so long ago.

[...]

Q. So on November 9^th you testified you couldn't remember what happened during this incident, yet thirteen days later on November 22^nd you signed that Affidavit where you said Robert Fields wasn't involved. Is that right?

A. No, sir.

Q. That's not right? Did you sign that Affidavit that Mr. Kaiser just showed you?

A. Yes.

Q. You signed that and is it dated November 22^nd on the back of it?

A. Yes.

Q. Thirteen days after you told the Court you couldn't remember what happened, you signed that Affidavit of multiple paragraphs detailing what happened. Is that right?

A. I just know he wasn't there.

See Docket Entry 66-5 [Exhibit 11] at CM/ECF 27-28. Turner continued to be questioned about his affidavit, which led to the following exchange:

Q. [...] What I want to know was at the time you were giving your plea to these crimes from that podium Mr. Turner, when you told me you didn't remember were you lying?

A. No, sir.

Q. Were you lying?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have an epiphany between that time and November 22^nd?

A. I just know he [i.e., Fields] didn't have nothing to do with it.

See Docket Entry 66-5 [Exhibit 11] at CM/ECF 31-32.

Sergeant Harwell was questioned about how and when he learned that “Dee” or “D” and Turner are the same person. See Docket Entry 66-5 [Exhibit 11] at CM/ECF 39-53. Sergeant Harwell testified that he was contacted by New, and she told him that she had learned “Dee” or “D” and Turner are the same person by viewing Turner's photograph on a website maintained by the Union County Sheriff's Office. The information was conveyed to Sergeant Harwell sometime between April 29, 2017, and the day of Fields' trial, i.e., July 26, 2017.

The trial court denied the petition for writ of error coram nobis. See Docket Entry 66-4 [Exhibit 10]. Fields filed an amended notice of appeal and joined his previously raised claims on appeal with a claim that the trial court erred when it denied his petition for writ of error coram nobis.

During the course of Fields' direct appeal, he filed a second state appellate court motion to stay briefing in the appeal and reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court. See Docket Entry 78-6 [Exhibit C]. He asked that jurisdiction be reinvested in the trial court so that it could consider two additional issues. First, Fields is actually innocent because on August 12, 2018, New signed an affidavit [“2018 affidavit”] in which, inter alia, she expressed doubt as to whether her assailant was indeed Fields. See Docket Entry 59-4 [Exhibit 2]. Second Fields' right to due process was violated when law enforcement officers discouraged New from testifying at the hearing on Fields' petition for writ of error coram...