Harmon v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 16 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:19-cv-1080-MMH-LLL |
| Parties | JAMES HARMON III, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
JAMES HARMON III, Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
No. 3:19-cv-1080-MMH-LLL
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
September 16, 2022
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I. Status
Petitioner James Harmon III, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action on September 27, 2019,[1] by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Petition; Doc. 1).[2] In the Petition, Harmon challenges his 2017 state court (Duval County) sentence of life imprisonment. He raises two claims. See Petition at 5-7. Respondents have submitted a memorandum in opposition to the Petition. See Answer in Response to Order to Show Cause (Response; Doc. 8). They also submitted exhibits. See Docs. 8-1 through 8-23. Harmon filed a brief in reply. See Reply
(Doc. 9). He also submitted exhibits. See Docs. 9-1 through 9-16. This action is ripe for review.
II. Relevant Procedural History
The state court described the nature and circumstances of the criminal offenses involving Harmon, stating in pertinent part:
It all began as a plan to get money, but ultimately turned into a week-long crime spree that terrorized the Riverside community in Jacksonville. Defendant and his co-defendant kidnapped and robbed four different individuals over that week in January 1981. Defendant and the co-defendant drove each victim around Jacksonville, taunting the victims with threats of violence while robbing them, showing a wanton disregard for the terror they instilled in each victim of their impending demise. They attempted to murder all four victims[] but were only successful in their plans as to Mr Langston and Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chadwick escaped with a wound to his knee, leaving only Mr. Burge physically unharmed
Docs. 8-1 at 159; 9-9 at 12 (record citations omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provided a brief procedural history, stating in pertinent part:
In 1981, Harmon, who was then 17 years old, pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree murder, one count of armed robbery, and one count of kidnapping.[3] In a separate case, he was convicted by a jury of one count of armed robbery and one count of
kidnapping.[4] In total, Harmon was adjudicated guilty of committing six felonies, each “punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment” pursuant to Sections 782.04(2), 787.01(2), and 812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981). When the pleas were taken, the court advised Harmon that the maximum sentence on each count was life imprisonment, but that there was no plea agreement as to the sentence. Instead of life sentences, the court imposed six consecutive terms of one hundred years each and retained jurisdiction to deny him parole during the first one-third of the total sentence, or for two hundred years. Harmon's attorney objected that the court could not legally retain jurisdiction over a period greater than Harmon's actual lifetime, but did not move to withdraw the guilty pleas.
Harmon appealed, arguing that the court erred in sentencing him to six hundred years and retaining jurisdiction for two hundred years because the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Harmon requested correction of the sentences, but did not request withdrawal of the pleas. The appellate court affirmed and certified the following issue to the Florida Supreme Court: “[W]hether a sentencing court, authorized to impose for each of six felonies a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment, may impose six consecutive 100-year terms and retain jurisdiction for one-third of each sentence, aggregating 200 years, to review any parole release order of the Parole Commission.” The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction, answered the question affirmatively, and upheld the convictions and sentences. Harmon v. State, 438 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1983).
Harmon v. Barton, 894 F.2d 1268, 1269 (11th Cir. 1990) (footnotes omitted).
On July 19, 2016, Harmon filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 in Case Nos. 984 and 985. Docs. 8-1 at 24-26; 8-6 at 22-24. In the Rule 3.800 motion, he asserted that he was entitled to resentencing for the non-homicide offenses under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Florida's 2014 juvenile sentencing legislation, and Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015). That same day, he filed a motion for postconviction relief in Case Nos. 986 and 987. Docs. 8-11 at 201-03; 8-12 at 1-12; 8-18 at 57-71. In the postconviction motion, Harmon asserted that his sentences violated the Eighth Amendment and the dictates in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). The State conceded that Harmon was entitled to resentencing on both counts of second degree murder. Docs. 8-12 at 39; 8-18 at 92. On February 15, 2017, the court granted Harmon's motions and appointed counsel to represent him. Docs. 8-1 at 27-39; 8-6 at 51-61; 8-12 at 43-52; 8-18 at 96-106. Harmon filed a motion for a Faretta[5] inquiry and leave to proceed pro se on July 11, 2017. Doc. 8-1 at 52. After a hearing advising Harmon of the disadvantages of representing himself, the court granted his motion, found that Harmon knowingly and intelligently waived his right to court-appointed counsel, and relieved Harmon's counsel from further representation, effective July 20, 2017.
Id. at 60-63.
On October 26, 2017, the court held a resentencing hearing, Docs. 8-4 at 148-206; 8-5 at 1-33, at which Harmon appeared pro se and testified, Doc. 8-5 at 2-5. On December 6, 2017, the court stated in pertinent part:
All right. Mr. Harmon, I've given much thought to your cases and to you as to what is the appropriate thing to do since this case came to my attention, and certainly since October when we had a sentencing hearing. Instead of going through all the reasons and findings that I made to the sentence that I'm going to impose, I'm not going to do that, they were written in a sentencing order[6] that I'm going to give a copy of to you, the bailiff has that for you now, hopefully it will set out with clarity, that was my intent, to explain why I'm doing what I'm doing. There[] [are] many attachments to that order to back up the findings.
So, pursuant to those findings as to the six counts in the four different cases, I'm going to sentence you to life in prison, give you credit for all the time that you've served, including the jail time.... These sentences are to run concurrently with one [an]other.
As to case numbers ending in 986 and 987, the homicide cases, I'm going to let you know that you have a chance to have the sentence reviewed after 25 years.
As to the cases ending in 984 and 985 [(the nonhomicide cases)], you're entitled to a 20 year review.
Doc. 8-5 at 36-37.
On December 12, 2017, Harmon filed a pro se motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Doc. 83 at 208-19. In the motion, he asked for an immediate “sentence review hearing” and asserted that the trial court was biased and vindictive when it sentenced him to life imprisonment, violated Eighth Amendment and ex post facto principles, overlooked rehabilitative evidence provided by Dr. Gregory Prichard, and denied him a meaningful opportunity for early release. Id. The court denied the motion on December 21, 2017. Docs. 8-3 at 220-34; 8-4 at 164; 9-11.
On appeal to the First District Court of Appeal (First DCA), Harmon, with the benefit of counsel, argued that the trial court erred when it: (1) found that the primary purpose of sentencing is to punish a juvenile offender; (2) imposed a life sentence; and (3) denied Harmon's pro se motion to correct sentencing error. Docs. 8-5 at 64 (First DCA Case No. 1D18-0111); 8-10 at 292 (1D18-0112); 8-17 at 103 (1D18-0113); 8-23 at 207 (1D18-0114). The State filed answer briefs, Docs. 8-5 at 108; 8-10 at 336; 8-17 at 147; 8-23 at 251, and Harmon filed reply briefs, Docs. 8-5 at 143; 8-10 at 369; 8-17 at 180; 8-23 at 284. The First DCA affirmed on August 30, 2019, Doc. 8-5 at 162, denied Harmon's motion for rehearing, id. at 171, and issued a mandate in each case on March 9, 2020, Docs. 8-5 at 173; 8-11 at 5; 8-17 at 210; 8-23 at 314.
III. One-Year Limitations Period
This action was timely filed within the one-year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
IV. Evidentiary Hearing
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to establish the need for a federal evidentiary hearing. See Chavez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir. 2011). “In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007); Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 834 F.3d 1299, 1318-19 (11th Cir. 2016). “It follows that if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474. The pertinent facts of this case are fully developed in the record before the Court. Because the Court can “adequately assess [Harmon's] claim[s] without further factual development,” Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003), an evidentiary hearing will not be conducted.
V. Standard of Review
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) governs a state prisoner's federal petition for habeas corpus. See Ledford v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic & Classification Prison,
818 F.3d 600, 642 (11th Cir. 2016). “‘The purpose of AEDPA is...
To continue reading
Request your trial