Hoffman v. Cain
| Decision Date | 12 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–70022.,12–70022. |
| Citation | 752 F.3d 430 |
| Parties | Jessie HOFFMAN, Petitioner–Appellant v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Sarah Lynn Ottinger, Esq., Caroline Wallace Tillman, New Orleans, LA, for, Petitioner–Appellant.
Kathryn W. Landry, Ieyoub & Landry, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Respondent–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Jessie Hoffman was convicted of first-degree murder by a Louisiana jury and sentenced to death. His conviction was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court and he was denied state post-conviction relief. The district court denied federal habeas relief, and granted a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). We AFFIRM the district court's denial of habeas relief.
On June 25, 1998, a Louisiana jury convicted Jessie Hoffman of first-degree murder in the death of Mary Elliot. Two days later, the jury found four aggravating circumstances justifying a death sentence: aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, armed robbery, and that the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner in that the victim was subjected to torture, physical abuse, or pitiless infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering.1 On September 11, 1998, the state trial court (hereinafter, “trial court”) imposed a sentence of death.
That Hoffman was responsible for the kidnapping, robbery, rape, and death of Elliot is virtually unchallenged. The evidence at trial showed that on the night of November 27, 1996, Hoffman kidnapped Elliot at gunpoint as she left her parking garage in downtown New Orleans after work.2 He forced Elliot to drive her car to an ATM machine and withdraw around $200 from her account.3 As the Louisiana Supreme Court noted: “The ATM video tape shows the terror on Ms. Elliot's face as she withdrew money from her account, and Hoffman can be seen standing next to his victim.” 4 As his girlfriend would later corroborate, she and Hoffman went shopping afterwards and he paid in cash for several items.5 Additionally, the State presented DNA and serological evidence linking Hoffman to Elliot.6
Hoffman then forced Elliot to drive to a remote area in St. Tammany Parish. 7 Elliot repeatedly begged Hoffman not to hurt her, and he told her he would not because she was cooperating.8 Elliot “offered herself” while begging for her safety, and Hoffman proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her, all the while still armed with the handgun.9 Hoffman claimed that the sex was consensual,10 but the jury did not believe him, and found aggravated rape as one of the aggravating circumstances supporting its verdict of death.
In his final videotaped confession, Hoffman confessed to kidnapping, robbing, and having sex with Elliot.11 Hoffman claimed that he shot Elliot during a struggle over the gun at a boat-launch, where the car had pulled over, an assertion the State maintains is a lie and which became the focal point of the trial. Elliot's body was not found by the boat-launch. Rather, it was found approximately 150 feet away at a small, makeshift dock, accessible by land only via a long dirt path, overgrown with vegetation and in an area full of trash.
The prosecutors argued that Hoffman must have known about the dock beforehand, and had planned to kill Elliot there. Under this theory of the case, subsequent to raping Elliot, Hoffman forced her to get out of her car while she was completely nude, and marched her down the dirt path.12 Hoffman forced Elliot to kneel and then shot her in the head, execution-style. 13 Elliot probably survived for a few minutes after being shot, but Hoffman left her on the dock, completely nude, on a cold November evening. 14 After kidnapping, robbing, raping, and killing Elliot, Hoffman disposed of her belongings and his gun, and returned to work two and a half hours after he had left for his “lunch hour.” 15 The State relied in part on this version of facts to argue premeditation which in turn showed specific intent, a necessary prerequisite under Louisiana law for a conviction of first-degree murder.16
On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed Hoffman's conviction and sentence,17 and denied his application for rehearing. 18 The Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. 19 Hoffmanthen filed a petition for state post-conviction relief on July 20, 2001, and a supplemental petition for post-conviction relief on December 10, 2003. The state post-conviction court (hereinafter, “state court”) granted an evidentiary hearing only for the claim made in the supplemental petition that his counsel were ineffective in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence for the penalty phase of the trial. Hoffman also filed a revised supplemental petition in order to correct minor errors on October 20, 2006.
Much of the testimony at the evidentiary hearing upon the ineffective assistance of counsel claim came in by deposition. Hoffman claimed that several pieces of physical evidence previously unavailable to him were made available for his review, and filed requests to test the evidence. After the evidentiary hearing and before any state court decision, on April 17, 2007, Hoffman filed an amendment to his supplemental petition raising three new claims.
The state court denied relief on May 1, 2007, referring only to the claims in the revised supplemental petition and offering reasons only for its denial of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Hoffman applied for a writ of discretionary review from the Louisiana Supreme Court on October 1, 2007. After initially refusing to accept many of the exhibits in the attached appendix, the Louisiana Supreme Court accepted some. Since this meant that Hoffman's pleadings, including the revised supplemental petition and the amendment, would not be presented to the Louisiana Supreme Court as exhibits, Hoffman filed a supplemental writ application asserting the same claims. On December 12, 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ applications in a summary opinion.20
On March 10, 2009, Hoffman timely filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. More than three years later,21 the district court denied relief and granted a COA. Hoffman timely appeals.
“In a habeas corpus appeal, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, applying the same standards to the state court's decision as did the district court.” 22
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), we cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless such adjudication:
(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. 23
For a challenge to a state court decision under § 2254(d)(1), the Supreme Court has clarified that the “contrary to” inquiry is different from the “unreasonable application”inquiry.24 A state court's decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” 25 A state court's decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law 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.” 26 In reviewing a state court's decision under the “unreasonable application” prong, we focus on “the ultimate legal conclusion that the state court reached and not on whether the state court considered and discussed every angle of the evidence.” 27 The Supreme Court has clarified that when a claim is adjudicated on the merits, for the purposes of review under § 2254(d)(1), the record is limited to the one before the state court, even if the state court issued a summary affirmance.28
A challenge to a state court decision under § 2254(d)(2) challenges the determination of facts by the state court.29 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct” and the habeas petitioner “shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 30Section 2254(e)(1) is the “arguably more deferential standard.” 31 The Supreme Court has recognized a division among the circuits on the interplay between these two statutory provisions,32 but has yet to resolve this question.33 Regardless, a state court's factual determination is “not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.” 34 For claims that are not adjudicated on the merits in the state court, we apply a de novo standard of review.35
Finally, under AEDPA, a habeas petitioner who has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court must show two things to be granted an evidentiary hearing.36 First, the petitioner has to show either that the claim relies on 1) “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or 2) “a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 37 Second, the petitioner has to show that “the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castillo v. Stephens
... ... See Woodfox v. Cain , 609 F.3d 774, 809 n.17 (5th Cir. 2010) (conclusory arguments are insufficient to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing ... that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense." Page 129 Hoffman v. Cain , 752 F.3d 430, 437-38 (5th Cir. 2014). With regard to those claims herein on which Petitioner obtained a ruling on the merits from the Texas ... ...
-
Ramey v. Davis
... ... -------- Notes: 1 The State argues that we should apply a more stringent standard to Rameys Batson claim, relying on Hoffman v. Cain , 752 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2014), among other cases. But Hoffman involved this courts review of a district courts denial of federal habeas ... ...
-
Garcia v. Stephens
... ... 1029. 24 Reed v. Stephens, 739 F.3d 753, 764 (5th Cir.2014) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 25 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). 26 Hoffman v. Cain, 752 F.3d 430, 437 (5th Cir.2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Williams v. Taylor 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 ... ...
-
Johnson v. Cain
... ... 28 U.S.C.A. 2254(d). 68 F.Supp.3d 603 A state court decision involves an unreasonable application of federal law if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle ... but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case. Hoffman v. Cain, 752 F.3d 430, 437 (5th Cir.2014) (internal quotations omitted). For claims that were not adjudicated on the merits in the state court, this Court applies a de novo standard of review. Solis v. Cockrell, 342 F.3d 392, 394 (5th Cir.2003). III. TIMELINESS On May 2, 2014, 2014 WL 7330598, ... ...
-
Trials
...of judges presiding over grand juries stating race and sex never considered against prospective grand jury forepersons); Hoffman v. Cain, 752 F.3d 430, 449 (5th Cir. 2014) (government’s burden met when exclusion of potential juror due to attitude toward death penalty). But see, e.g. , U.S. ......
-
Review Proceedings
...precluded because last reasoned decision by state court expressly dismissed petitioner’s claim for procedural default); Hoffman v. Cain, 752 F.3d 430, 448 (5th Cir. 2014) (habeas review precluded because last state court judgment concluded that petitioner’s Batson claim procedurally default......