Grimes v. Sec'y, Fla. Dept. of Corr.
| Decision Date | 26 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-276-AW-GRJ |
| Parties | AARON GRIMES, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Aaron Grimes (“Grimes”) initiated this second petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, after the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals gave him leave to do so.[1] See In re: Aaron Grimes, No. 20-13188 (11th Cir. 2020), ECF No. 1-2 at 3-15. The Petition stems from Grimes's 1997 Alachua County convictions on two counts of robbery with a firearm, for which Grimes is serving a life sentence. ECF No. 1 at 1. The Eleventh Circuit granted Grimes leave to file a second petition based upon alleged “newly discovery evidence” that purported to show “actual innocence.” ECF No. 1. Grimes's newly discovered evidence is comprised of three affidavits dated 2020. The affidavits are from Joseph Jenkins (“Jenkins”), who now says he is the person who committed the armed robbery, as well as the two victims of the robbery, Quentin Arthur (“Arthur”) and Tellas Barnum (“Barnum”), recanting their trial testimony that Grimes robbed them at gunpoint.[2] ECF No. 1-2 at 22-24.
The Petition sets forth two grounds for relief, both based upon prosecutorial misconduct. Ground One alleges that Grimes's convictions were obtained in violation of due process because the prosecution induced and presented testimony known to be materially false, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). ECF No. 1 at 5. Ground Two alleges that Grimes's convictions were obtained in violation of due process because the prosecutor failed to provide exculpatory material, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). ECF No. 1 at 7.
After due consideration, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Petition should be DISMISSED as untimely. It is further RECOMMENDED that the affidavits submitted to the Eleventh Circuit and to this Court in support of the Petition should be REFERRED to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida for investigation and possible perjury prosecutions.[3]
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
On December 24, 1996, at approximately 9:00 p.m. in Gainesville Florida, Grimes and an unidentified “light-skinned” African American male robbed Arthur and Barnum at gunpoint. See ECF No. 12-1 at 139, 144. According to both Arthur and Barnum, Grimes pointed a gun at them during the hold-up. ECF No. 12-1 at 144, 163. Stolen items included $20.00 in cash, a Mickey Mouse necklace, and a Georgetown University basketball jacket. Id. at 145, 165. After the robbery, Grimes and his co-assailant drove away in a car possibly driven by a woman. Id. at 144, 166. The victims called Gainesville police. Arthur and Barnum each picked Grimes out of a photo-lineup and identified Grimes as the man with the gun. Id. at 10-13. Neither victim knew nor identified Grimes's “light-skinned” cohort. ECF No. 12-1 at 144.
On December 25, 2022, Grimes was arrested on two counts of robbery using a firearm and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Id. at 10-13. A jury convicted Grimes of the armed robbery charges on June 11, 1997. See Id. at 316. On July 31, 1997, Grimes was sentenced as a Habitual Felony Offender to life imprisonment. Id. at 336.
After exhausting his state court remedies, on November 2, 2004, Grimes filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Aaron Grimes v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 1:04-cv-432-AW-EMT (N.D. Fla.), ECF No. 1. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as untimely under the federal habeas statute of limitations. ECF No. 29. To overcome the time-bar, Grimes asserted that he was actually innocent based upon newly discovered evidence. ECF No. 35 at 3-7. In support of his actual innocence claims, Grimes submitted a sworn affidavit in which Barnum recanted his trial testimony that Grimes used a firearm to rob him. ECF No. 12 at 26-29. Grimes also submitted affidavits from three (3) Florida prison inmates that purported to corroborate Barnum's recantation. Id. at 30-34. United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth M. Timothy recommended that the petition be dismissed as untimely because the affidavits failed to establish actual innocence. ECF No. 42. United States District Judge Maurice M. Paul adopted the recommendation and report, and the petition was dismissed. ECF No. 45.
Twenty-three (23) years after the robbery, in 2019, Grimes says he encountered Jenkins in the law library at the prison where both men were incarcerated at the time. According to Grimes, Jenkins disclosed that he had robbed Arthur and Barnum in Gainesville on December 24, 1996. To amend his ways, Jenkins offered to provide Grimes with a sworn statement confessing to the robbery so that Grimes could prove his innocence. The following year, in 2020, Grimes received two unsolicited affidavits via prison mail, one from Barnum dated March 19, 2020, and the other from Arthur dated August 11, 2020. See ECF No. 1-2 at 23-25. The 2020 Arthur and Barnum statements recant their trial testimony that Grimes robbed them at gunpoint and further attest that Gainesville police had pressured them to falsely testify at trial that Grimes committed the robbery. Id.
Jenkins also supplied Grimes with a 2020 affidavit. In his affidavit dated July 11, 2020, Jenkins confessed to robbing Arthur and Barnum on December 24, 1996. ECF No. 1-2 at 22. Jenkins further attested that Gainesville police arrested him on the night of the robbery, while Jenkins had on his person items stolen from Arthur and Barnum. Id. Rather than detain Jenkins, Gainesville police let Jenkins go as “a favor.” Id.
Relying on the three (3) 2020 affidavits as newly discovered evidence, Grimes moved for leave to file a second petition based on claims of actual innocence. ECF No. 1-2 at 18-24. In the motion, Grimes argued that the Arthur and Barnum affidavits showed that his due process rights were violated under Giglio, and that the Jenkins affidavit showed a due process violation under Brady. The Eleventh Circuit granted Grimes leave to file a second petition, id. at 3-15, concluding that Grimes made a prima facie case for prosecutorial misconduct sufficient to support Grimes's actual innocence claims. ECF No. 1-2 at 15. The Court of Appeals also appointed CJA attorney Daniel F. Daly (Mr. Daly”) to represent Grimes in these proceedings. Id. at 49.
Eighteen months into this case, Mr. Daly moved for leave to withdraw from the representation, citing ethical concerns. ECF No. 18. Mr. Daly's ethical concerns arose after he interviewed Arthur about his 2020 affidavit, and Arthur disavowed it. ECF No. 20. The Court granted Mr. Daly's motion for leave to withdraw, ECF No. 22, and directed Grimes to file a response under penalty of perjury as to whether the 2020 affidavits were truthful. ECF No. 24. Grimes responded that “under penalty of perjury” “the affidavits he relies on are truthful to the best of his knowledge.” ECF No. 26 at 2.
Because of the questionable veracity of Arthur's 2020 statements, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 27. The Court directed Grimes, Mr. Daly, Arthur, Barnum, and Jenkins to appear at the hearing so the Court could examine the truthfulness of the 2020 statements. The federal habeas statute permits a court to conduct an evidentiary hearing if a petitioner's claim “relies on... a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and. the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for the constitutional error no reasonable juror would have found the petition guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii) and (B).
If the 2020 statements were true, they could provide “clear and convincing evidence” to establish that, but for the alleged Giglio and Brady violations, no reasonable juror would have found Grimes guilty of the armed robbery of Arthur and Barnum. If, however, the affidavits contained false statements, or were forged, then a fraud on the Court may have been committed.[4]
II. THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
The Court has examined the 2020 sworn statements with the benefit of the testimony obtained during the 2022 evidentiary hearing and in consideration of the relevant 1997 trial testimony. Taken in the proper context, the Court finds that the 2020 affidavits provide no support for Grimes's actual innocence claims.
The 2020 sworn statements, if true and taken together, would support Grimes's claim that his due process rights were violated by the prosecution's alleged knowing use of perjured testimony in violation of Giglio (Ground One), and by the prosecution's alleged failure to provide Grimes with exculpatory evidence as required by Brady (Ground Two).
Grimes relies upon the Arthur and Barnum affidavits to support his Giglio claim. In their affidavits, Arthur and Barnum recant their trial testimony and attest that Gainesville police pressured them to falsely testify that Grimes committed the robbery. ECF No. 1-2 at 23-24. Arthur and Barnum go on to say that the person who actually robbed them was “lightskinned” and that Grimes is “dark-skinned.” Id. Further, Arthur and Barnum say that they lied about Grimes's having used a gun. Id. Grimes argues that these statements support his claim that his due process rights were violated under Giglio because the prosecution knowingly used Arthur's and Barnum's false testimony that Grimes had robbed them at gunpoint.
Grimes's Brady claim is purportedly supported by Jenkins's affidavit. In the affidavit, Jenkins attests...
To continue reading
Request your trial