ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CHANGE RESPONDENT, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254, GRANTING A LIMITED CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
I. STATE COURT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................ 1
II. FEDERAL COURT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................ 11
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 13
IV. HUGUELEY'S FEDERAL HABEAS CLAIMS ................................................................. 16
V. RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ......................................................................... 18
VI. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 19 A. Ineffective Assistance - Investigation, Preparation & Penalty Phase (Claims I(1-4) & K(1 & 3)) ................................................................................................................................... 22
B. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel (Claim L(1)) ............................................ 26
C. Ineffective Assistance - Hugueley's Prior Convictions (Claims I(5), K(2) & L(2)) ... 27
VII. THE LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................. 31 A. Merits Review under § 2254 .......................................................................................... 31
B. Waiver and Procedural Default ...................................................................................... 33
C. Summary Judgment Standard ......................................................................................... 35
VIII.ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 36
A. Batson ............................................................................................................................. 37
1. Procedural Default - Hudson, Gibbs & Pirtle ............................................................ 37
2. The Exhausted Batson Claim ..................................................................................... 42
B. Peremptory Challenges Based on Gender ...................................................................... 62
C. Prospective Juror Barry Watkins .................................................................................... 64
D. Insufficient Evidence of Aggravating Circumstances .................................................... 75
E. Jury Instruction on the Aggravating Circumstance of Killing A Correctional Employee 81
1. Plain Error Review & Procedural Default .................................................................. 82
2. Merits .......................................................................................................................... 84
F. Waiver of Mitigation Evidence ...................................................................................... 91
G. Weighing of Aggravating & Mitigating Circumstances ................................................ 98
H. Death is a Disproportionate Penalty ............................................................................. 100
I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - Investigation, Preparation & Penalty Phase Defense (Claims I & K) ........................................................................................................................ 105
1. The Strickland Standard ........................................................................................... 107
2. Procedural Default .................................................................................................... 108
3. Merits ........................................................................................................................ 127
J. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - Jury Selection (Claim J) ..................................... 135
K. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - Direct Appeal (Claim L) ..................................... 136
IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 137
X. APPEAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................... 138 In 2002, while Petitioner, Stephen Hugueley, was incarcerated at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility ("HCCF") on two murder convictions and one attempted murder conviction, he stabbed corrections counselor Delbert Steed multiple times killing him. Hugueley was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to death for Steed's murder. State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356, 363 (Tenn. 2006). He now seeks federal habeas relief. For the reasons addressed below, summary judgment is GRANTED, and Hugueley's habeas petition is DENIED.
I. STATE COURT PROCEDURAL HISTORY The trial in Hugueley's case was held on September 15-16, 2003, before Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County, Tennessee. (See ECF No. 41-2 at PageID 369.) Hugueley was represented by Michie Gibson and T. J. Cross-Jones. (Id.) Assistant District Attorneys General ("ADA") Terry Dycus and Colin Campbell represented the State. (Id.)
In the guilt phase, the State presented the testimony of six witnesses: Judy Ranne, Mary Harris, Donald Watkins, Joseph "Joe" Vernon, Don Dunaway, and Dr. O'Brien Clary Smith. (See ECF No. 41-4 at PageID 586-87.) The defense called two witnesses: Hugueley and Howard Cook. (See id. at PageID 588.) On September 16, 2003, at 11:33 a.m. the jury retired for deliberations. (Id. at PageID 679.) At noon, the jury returned with a verdict finding Hugueley guilty of first degree murder. (Id. at PageID 682.)
The penalty phase began that afternoon, and the State presented the testimony of Vernon, Dunaway, Smith, and Willie Leroy Steed. (Id. at PageID 588-89.) The State rested on September 16, 2003. (ECF No. 41-5 at PageID 729.) Hugueley decided not to present a mitigation case, however, defense counsel asked that Hugueley's social history be made an exhibitto the record to show that a mitigation investigation was conducted. (Id. at PageID 730.) The jury heard closing arguments, were given the jury instructions, and retired for deliberations at 3:13 p.m. (Id. at PageID 738.) The jury returned to court at 4:07 p.m. with the pronouncement of a death sentence. (Id.)
Hugueley did not want to appeal. (See id. at PageID 749-50.) Nonetheless, the trial court advised him that the Tennessee Supreme Court ("TSC") will automatically review his conviction. (Id. at PageID 745-46, 750.) Petitioner was told that a motion for new trial was filed to initiate the appellate process. (Id. at PageID 746.) The trial court informed him of his right to an appeal and assured that Hugueley had not been coerced into a decision to waive his appeal rights. (Id. at PageID 749-50, 752.) The record states,
Hugueley is one of the more intelligent individuals that I've come across. He does not display any signs of mental illness or any mental defect. He appears to know exactly what he wants and he appears to understand his rights as well as any criminal defendant that I've ever dealt with.
(Id. at PageID 755.) The inmate said, "I'm still sane." (Id.) The court allowed Hugueley to withdraw his motion for new trial and relieved his attorneys of the obligation to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. (Id. at PageID 750.)
On January 13, 2004, a hearing was conducted concerning Hugueley's appeal rights. (See id. at PageID 756.) The court summarized what had occurred previously and noted that it had consulted with capital case attorneys about how to proceed since the appeal would take place regardless of Petitioner's attempts to waive his appeal rights. (Id. at PageID 756-59.) Gibson was appointed as counsel and the motion for new trial was overruled. (Id. at PageID 759; see ECF No. 41-1 at PageID 354.) The trial court noted that Hugueley wrote a letter stating he did notwant Gibson to proceed with an appeal, did not desire to have an appeal, and that any work done by the attorney to further an appeal would be against Hugueley's wishes. (Id. at PageID 360; see ECF No. 41-5 at PageID 759-60.)
If the appeal was mandatory, the inmate wanted to represent himself. (Id. at PageID 760-61.) The trial court examined Hugueley to present a clear record to the TSC. (Id. at PageID 761-65.) Gibson was discharged as counsel, and the court arranged for Hugueley to obtain the transcripts and records needed to represent himself on appeal. (Id. at PageID 765-68; see ECF No. 41-1 at PageID 364-65.)
On March 17, 2005, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ("TCCA") affirmed Hugueley's conviction and death sentence. (ECF No. 41-12 at PageID 1380.) See State v. Hugueley, No. W2004-00057-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 645179 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 17, 2005). On March 15, 2006, the TSC affirmed. (ECF No. 41-15 at PageID 1503.) State v. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2006).
On July 24, 2006, Petitioner filed a Pro Se Petition for Relief From Conviction or Sentence. (ECF No. 42-1 at PageID 1547-55.) On July 21, 2006, the Office of the Post-Conviction Defender ("PCD") was appointed as counsel for him. (Id. at PageID 1557.) On October 5, 2006, Hugueley submitted a petition for an "Order barring attorney Kelly Gleason and the Post-Conviction Defender's Office from raising ANY issues other than those issues raised on his Direct Appeal." (Id. at PageID 1561-63.) On October 13, 2006, the State filed a motion to dismiss Hugueley's petition, arguing that...
