Gatlin v. Culpepper

• Decision Date: 12 August 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:10cv386/MCR/MD
• Parties: JIMMY EDWARD GATLIN, Petitioner, v. SAM CULPEPPER, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

JIMMY EDWARD GATLIN, Petitioner,

v.SAM CULPEPPER, Respondent.

Case No. 3:10cv386/MCR/MD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION

Dated: August 12, 2011

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1). Respondent has filed a response (doc. 16) to which petitioner replied (doc. 19). 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 Mr. Gatlin, it is the opinion of the undersigned 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. It is further the opinion of the undersigned that the pleadings and attachments before the court show that Mr. Gatlin is not entitled to relief, and the petition is without merit and should be denied.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The petitioner, Jimmy Edward Gatlin, was charged in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County, Florida, by Amended Information with two counts of attempt to engage in sexual activity with certain minors in violation of Section 794.05, Florida Statutes (2007), one count of battery in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes(2007), and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in violation of Section 827.04(1), Florida Statutes (2007). (Doc. 16, ex. A, p.¹

The police report details the factual basis for the allegations, to which Mr. Gatlin ultimately stipulated (see ex. A, pp. 91, 116). On May 19, 2007, B.C.G., K.M.F., and Ashley Hafner went to a graduation party for Mr. Gatlin's daughter at his residence. B.C.G. and K.M.F. were seventeen at the time. The three girls drank alcoholic beverages and decided to spend the night. Around three o' clock in the morning, Mr. Gatlin touched or rubbed each girl. Mr. Gatlin's tongue entered B.C.G.'s vagina and he attempted to perform oral sex on her. He then reached under Ashley Hafner's shirt and rubbed her breasts. Finally, he went to his daughter's bedroom, where K.M.F. was sleeping, pulled down her underwear, and felt her unclothed vaginal area. All three girls reported moving around, rolling over, or saying "no" to stop his advances. (Ex. A, pp. 118). During a subsequent interview at the Sheriff's Office, Mr. Gatlin admitted to touching the victims and stated he thought they were asleep at the time (ex. A, p. 118).

On November 13, 2007, Mr. Gatlin signed a Written Plea Agreement by which he agreed to plead guilty to all counts of the Amended Information (ex. A, pp. 91-99). The same day, he entered a plea of guilty to all counts in open court (ex. A, p. 2).² On November 19, 2007, he was adjudicated guilty on all counts and sentenced to two five-year terms of imprisonment to run consecutively, and two terms of elevenmonths and twenty-nine days, to run concurrently with the five-year sentence (ex. A, dkt. p. 4). Mr. Gatlin was also designated as a sexual offender (id.).

Mr. Gatlin appealed the convictions and sentences (ex. B, p. 1). On October 8, 2009, the Florida First District Court of Appeals ("First DCA") per curium affirmed the sentence without written opinion. Gatlin v. State of Florida, 23 So.3d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (Table) (copy at ex. B). Mr. Gatlin subsequently filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, alleging nine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (ex. A, p. 1). On June 17, 2010, the Rule 3.850 court denied the motion by written decision (ex. A, p. 85). Mr. Gatlin appealed the denial (ex. A, p. 168), and the First DCA per curium affirmed the denial on September 21, 2010. Howard v. State of Florida, 45 So.3d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Table) (copy at ex. E). The Mandate issued on October 19, 2010 (ex. E, dkt.).

Mr. Gatlin filed the instant petition for federal habeas corpus on October 5, 2010 (doc. 1). Without conceding available procedural bars, Respondent states that the petition appears timely (doc. 16, p. 12).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. In relevant part, § 2254 provides:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-

(1) resulted in a decision that 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) resulted in a decision that 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) (2006).

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).³ Section 2254(d)(2) must be divided into two separate inquiries:

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). The federal habeas court "determining whether [it] should overturn the state courts' [sic] rejection of the claim at issue" should "review the highest state court decision disposing of the claim." Harvey v. Warden, Union Corr. Inst., 629 F.3d 1228, 1237 (11th Cir. 2011); see Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 129 S. Ct. 1411, 1419, 173 L. Ed. 2d 251 (2009).

Following the Williams framework, on any issue raised in a federal habeas petition upon which there has been an adjudication on the merits in a formal state court proceeding, the federal court should 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 renders its decision." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1172, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003). The law is "clearly established" only when the Supreme Court's holding embodies the legal principle;dicta in opinions is not controlling. Thaler v. Haynes, ____ U.S. ____, 130 S. Ct. 1171, 1173, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1003 (2010); Bowles v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 608 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, a federal court of appeals decision, "even a holding directly on point," cannot clearly establish federal law for § 2254 purposes. Bowles, 608 F.3d at 1316 (citing Renico v. Lett, ____ U.S. ____, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 1866 (2010)).

After identifying the governing legal principle, the court determines whether the state court adjudication is "contrary to" clearly established Supreme Court case law, either because the state court "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases," or because it "confronts a set of facts that is materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the] Court but reaches a different result." Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 141, 125 S. Ct. 1432, 1438, 161 L. Ed. 2d 334 (2005); see § 2254(d)(1). The state court does not need to cite to Supreme Court cases or even be aware of them, "so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them." Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S. Ct. 362, 365, 154 L. Ed. 2d 263 (2002). If the state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law, the federal habeas court must independently consider the merits of the petitioner's claim.

If the state court decision is not contrary to clearly established federal law, the federal habeas court must then determine whether the state court "unreasonably applied" the governing legal principles set forth in the Supreme Court's cases. § 2254(d)(1); Williams, 529 U.S. at 412-13, 120 S. Ct. at 1523. The federal court defers to the state court's reasoning unless the state court's application of the legal principle was "objectively unreasonable" in light of the record the court had before it. Williams, 529 U.S. at 409, 120 S. Ct. at 1521; see Cullen v. Pinholster, ____ U.S. ____, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1400, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2011) (holding new evidence introduced in federal habeas court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review, rejecting dicta in Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 652, 124 S. Ct. 2736, 2737-38, 159 L. Ed. 2d 683 (2004) (per curiam)); cf. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 n.4, 122 S. Ct. 1843, 1851 n.4, 152 L. Ed.2d 914 (2002) (declining to consider evidence not presented to state court in determining whether its decision was contrary to federal law). A state court's application of federal law is objectively unreasonable when the state court "identifies the correct legal rule from Supreme Court case law but unreasonably applies that rule to the facts of the petitioner's case" or "unreasonably extends, or unreasonably declines to extend, a legal principle from Supreme Court case law to a new context." Brown, 544 U.S. at 141, 125 S. Ct. at 1439. However, a state court may "decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme Court]" without running afoul of the "unreasonable application" clause. Knowles, 129 S. Ct. at 1419. Notably, even a state court's incorrect...