Hazelwood v. Howell

• Decision Date: 23 October 2019
• Docket Number: Case No.: 3:14-cv-00022-LRH-WGC
• Parties: SHAQUILLE E. HAZELWOOD, Petitioner v. JERRY HOWELL, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

SHAQUILLE E. HAZELWOOD, Petitioner v. JERRY HOWELL, et al., Respondents.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-00022-LRH-WGC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

October 23, 2019

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by Shaquille Hazelwood, a Nevada prisoner. This case is before the Court for adjudication of the merits of Hazelwood's remaining claims. The Court will deny Hazelwood's habeas petition, will deny him a certificate of appealability, and will direct the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly.

II. BACKGROUND

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on April 22, 2007, the victim, Cheryl Black, drove to an alleyway in Las Vegas, Nevada, which was known for being a drug and crime area, to purchase some drugs. ECF No. 20-5 at 69-70, 76-77; ECF No. 21-2 at 107. While still in the driver's seat of her vehicle, the victim purchased drugs from Hazelwood through the passenger-side window. ECF No. 20-5 at 86-87. Following the transaction and deciding that she wished to make another purchase, the victim retrieved her money and started counting it. Id. at 87. Hazelwood, upon noticing the large sum of money, ran from the passenger side of the vehicle to the driver's side of the vehicle, pulled out a gun, and pointed the gun at the victim through the open window. Id. at 87-88. Hazelwood demanded that the victim give him her money, and when she refused and attempted to drive away, Hazelwood shot the victim in her head. Id. at 88-89.

Following a jury trial in Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court, Hazelwood was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. ECF No. 21-7 at 2. Hazelwood was sentenced to 20 years to life for the first-degree murder conviction plus an equal and consecutive term of 20 years to life for the deadly weapon enhancement and 24 to 60 months for the attempted robbery conviction plus an equal and consecutive term of 24 to 60 months for the deadly weapon enhancement. Id. at 3. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Hazelwood's convictions. ECF No. 22-4.

Hazelwood filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 22-7. Hazelwood later filed a counseled, supplemental petition. ECF No. 22-13. The state district court denied Hazelwood's petition, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. ECF No. 22-22; ECF No. 22-28.

Hazelwood dispatched his federal habeas petition on or about December 16, 2013. ECF No. 12. Hazelwood's counseled, first-amended petition was filed on November 13, 2014. ECF No. 18. Hazelwood's first-amended petition alleges the following violations of his federal constitutional rights:

1. His trial counsel was ineffective:

A1. His trial counsel failed to properly advise him of the consequences of withdrawing his guilty plea.

A2. His trial counsel failed to move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

B. His trial counsel failed to move to suppress a witness's identification of him.

C. His trial counsel disclosed his juvenile criminal record and detention.

D. His trial counsel failed to request an instruction on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter.

2. The state district court erred in permitting him to withdraw his voluntary guilty plea.

3. The state district court allowed the introduction of improper victim-impact evidence.

4. The state district court allowed the introduction of evidence that witnesses felt threatened or afraid, despite the lack of evidence that Hazelwood threatened or caused them to be threatened.

5. There were cumulative errors.

Id. The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss Hazelwood's first-amended petition. ECF No. 26. Hazelwood opposed the motion, and the Respondents filed a reply. ECF Nos. 31, 34. This Court granted the Respondents' motion in part. ECF No. 38. Specifically, this Court dismissed Ground 1(A)(1) with prejudice as procedurally defaulted. Id. at 7. The Respondents filed an answer to the remaining grounds in Hazelwood's first-amended petition on August 22, 2017. ECF No. 51. Hazelwood filed a reply on March 7, 2018. ECF No. 59.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the standard of review generally applicable in habeas corpus cases under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"):

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.

A state court decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, "if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's] cases" or "if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000), and citing Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002)). A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) "if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id. at 75 (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413). "The 'unreasonable application' clause requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court's application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable." Id. (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-10) (internal citation omitted).

The Supreme Court has instructed that "[a] state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). The Supreme Court has stated "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable." Id. at 102 (citing Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (describing the standard as a "difficult to meet" and "highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Ground 1(A)(2)¹

In Ground 1(A)(2), because he was only sixteen years old, Hazelwood argues that his federal constitutional rights were violated when his trial counsel failed to move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem when Hazelwood sought the withdrawal of his guilty plea. ECF No. 18 at 12. Hazelwood explains that he was prejudiced by this deficiency because if his trial counsel had moved for this appointment, that motion would have been granted, and he would have not withdrawn his guilty plea and received a stricter sentence. Id. at 13-14. Hazelwood elaborates that aside from his trial counsel, he had no responsible adult providing guidance in his life, he suffered abuse at home, he had documented mental health issues, and he was immature and unable to process and make complex legal decisions. Id. at 12-13. Hazelwood contends that while there is no statute in Nevada specifically providing for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in a criminal case, there is also no statute in Nevada specifically precluding the appointment of a guardian ad litem in a criminal case. ECF No. 59 at 11.

In Hazelwood's state habeas appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court held:

Hazelwood argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that a guardian ad litem be appointed when he moved to withdraw his guilty plea because of his age. Hazelwood fails to demonstrate that an objectively reasonable attorney in trial counsel's place would have requested such an appointment as Hazelwood alleges no standard of statutory requirement that a criminal defendant be appointed a guardian ad litem because of age, immaturity, social background, or decision-making skills. Insomuch as Hazelwood argues that he needed a guardian ad litem to make his legal decisions for him, "[t]he decision of how to plead in a criminal case is a fundamental one reserved ultimately to the defendant alone." Parker v. State, 100 Nev. 264, 265, 679 P.2d 1271, 1272 (1984); see also Robinson v. State, 110 Nev. 1137, 1138, 881 P.2d 667, 668 (1994) (once a child is certified as an adult, he "is no longer a child in the eyes of the criminal law"). Further, Hazelwood fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different as the district court appointed special counsel for the limited purpose of reviewing the motion and advising Hazelwood on his plea withdrawal, and, after conferring with special counsel and being thoroughly canvassed by the district court on his decision, Hazelwood chose to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.

ECF No. 22-28 at 3-4.

Hazelwood was charged with murder with the use of a deadly weapon and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. ECF No. 19-4. Hazelwood, who was sixteen years old, pleaded not guilty at his initial arraignment on August 22, 2007. ECF No. 19-5. During a calendar call hearing on October 24, 2007, Hazelwood's trial counsel informed the state district court that the State had made a reasonable offer to Hazelwood. ECF No. 19-6 at 3. The state district court continued the previously-set trial date to allow Hazelwood's trial...