Hilton v. Stephon
Decision Date | 13 November 2018 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2:18-cv-00962-DCC-MGB |
Parties | Kenneth Hilton, # 354034, Petitioner, v. Warden Stephon, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Kenneth Hilton ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner, seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court upon Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 14.) Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review the instant Petition for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.
The Petitioner filed this action on April 4, 2018. (Dkt. No. 1.) On June 29, 2018, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 13; 14.) Petitioner has responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment.1 (Dkt. No. 20.) For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned recommends granting Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14).
Petitioner is currently confined within the South Carolina Department of Corrections at Broad River Correctional Institution. In March of 2012, the Cherokee County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner for kidnapping and first degree criminal sexual conduct ("CSC"). (Dkt. No. 13-1 at 148-149.) On January 23, 2013, Petitioner pled guilty on the kidnapping charge andwaived Grand Jury presentment on an indictment for assault with intent to commit second degree CSC before the Honorable J. Derham Cole. (Id. at 146-147.) Petitioner was represented by Don Thompson. (Dkt. No. 18-2 at 1, 3.) Judge Cole sentenced Petitioner to consecutive terms of twenty-five years for kidnapping and twenty years for assault with intent to commit second degree CSC. (Id. at 3-33; 130; 132.) Petitioner did not appeal his convictions or sentence.
Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief ("PCR") on May 1, 2013. (Id. at 35-42.) Therein, Petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, and he "reserve[d] the right to amend the Application's grounds [at] a later date." (Id.) The State filed a Return and a Motion for More Definitive Statement. An evidentiary hearing was originally scheduled for April 10, 2014. However, Petitioner filed a series of motions on February 7, 2014, and April 1, 2014, in which he asked to have his appointed attorney, Leah B. Moody, Esquire, relieved. (Dkt. No. 13-2 at 3-22.)
On April 10, 2014, Judge Cole held a hearing on Petitioner's motion to relieve counsel. (Id. at 24-26.) Petitioner was present at this hearing and Ms. Moody represented him. (Id.) Petitioner again moved to relieve counsel. (Id. at 28-29.) On July 22, 2014, Judge Cole issued a written Order granting Petitioner's motion, noting that the court had instructed Petitioner that the court would not appoint a new attorney if he chose to relieve his appointed counsel and that Petitioner would be required to proceed pro se. (Id. at 35.)
On March 27, 2015, an evidentiary hearing was held before the Honorable Roger L. Couch. (Dkt. No. 13-1 at 48.) Petitioner was present and represented himself. (Id.) Petitioner testified on his own behalf at the hearing, while the State presented testimony from plea counsel, Mr. Thompson. (Id. at 49-105.) In an Order dated September 28, 2015, Judge Couch denied the application for post-conviction relief and dismissed with prejudice the petition. (Id. at 138-145.)The Order addressed Petitioner's claims that: (1) the plea judge did not have jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas because plea counsel and the Assistant Solicitor withheld information regarding his mental status; (2) the plea judge did not have jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas because plea counsel failed to bring the kidnapping indictment to him for his signature; and (3) his guilty plea was involuntary because plea counsel's lack of representation forced him to plead guilty. (Id.)
Petitioner timely served and filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. No. 13-3.) Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachack represented Petitioner in the collateral appellate proceedings. On January 13, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari through Mr. Pachack. (Dkt. No. 13-4.) He presented the following issue on certiorari: "Whether the PCR court erred in allowing petitioner to represent himself when it did not warn petitioner of [the] dangers and disadvantages of self-representation?" (Id. at 3.) The State filed a Return to Petition for Writ of Certiorari on July 11, 2016. (Dkt. No. 13-5.) On September 8, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court filed an Order granting certiorari and directing the parties to submit briefs. (Dkt. No. 13-6.)
Petitioner filed a Brief of Petitioner on October 26, 2017. (Dkt. No. 13-7.) He presented the following issue for review: "Whether the PCR court erred in allowing petitioner to represent himself when it did not warn petitioner of dangers and disadvantages of self-representation?" (Id. at 4.) The State filed a Brief of Respondent on December 27, 2017. (Dkt. No. 13-8.) On February 28, 2018, the Court filed a published Opinion affirming the denial of relief. (Dkt. No. 13-9); see Hilton v. State, 422 S.C. 204, 810 S.E.2d 852 (2018). It sent the Remittitur to the Cherokee County Clerk of Court on March 16, 2018. (Dkt. No. 13-10.)
Petitioner then filed the instant pro se habeas petition, wherein he raised the following grounds for review (verbatim):
To continue reading
Request your trial