Jobes v. Mears

• Decision Date: 30 September 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 19-837-GBW
• Parties: EDWARD A. JOBES, Petitioner, v. TRUMAN MEARS, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

EDWARD A. JOBES, Petitioner,
v.
TRUMAN MEARS, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.

Civil Action No. 19-837-GBW

United States District Court, D. Delaware

September 30, 2022

Edward A. Jobes. Pro Se Petitioner.

Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[1]

Williams, District Judge:

1

Presently pending before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Edward A. Jobes. (D.I. 3) The State filed an Answer in opposition. (D.I. 10) For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny the Petition.

I. BACKGROUND

[Petitioner] was arrested on October 8, 2015 and charged with one count of Rape in the Third Degree. The investigation arose after a witness revealed to her counselor that [Petitioner], who was 34 years old, had engaged in sexual intercourse with the 14 year old victim. The victim was interviewed at the Children's Advocacy Center but she was unable to discuss what had transpired with [Petitioner]. Due to the passage of time between the date of the offense and the disclosure, a SANE [Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner] kit could not be collected from the victim. A search warrant was executed on [Petitioner's] house and a computer tower two cell phones, and photographs were seized. Subsequently [Petitioner] was taken to Delaware State Police Troop 3 for questioning. Prior to the interrogation Detective Shawn Doherty read [Petitioner] his Miranda rights, which he waived. During his statement, [Petitioner] admitted that the victim was his second cousin and that he communicated with her over the “KIK” which is a cell phone app. The Affidavit of Probable cause states [Petitioner] told the police that he and the victim communicated through computer and cell phone apps. After initially denying inappropriate contact, [Petitioner] claimed that the victim came onto him, he became sexually aroused and consequently he engaged in sexual intercourse with her. He described the act in great detail, including physical positioning and the sequence of events

2

[Petitioner] stated that the sex act occurred on the couch in his shed.

State v. Jobes, 2017 WL 5075380, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2017). Petitioner was indicted on December 7,2015 for third degree rape. (D.I.11-11 at 20) On February 24, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of fourth degree rape. (D.I. 11-11 at 21) The Superior Court sentenced Petitioner on May 24,2016 to fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended after four years for decreasing levels of supervision. (See D.I. 11-11 at 47) Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

On July 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se motion for modification of sentence. (D.I. 11-1 at Entry No. 10) The Superior Court summarily denied the motion on July 15, 2016, and Petitioner did not appeal that decision. (See D.I. 10 at 2)

On July 18, 2016, Petitioner filed in the Superior Court a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61 motion”). (D.I. 11-1 at Entry No. 12); see Jobes, 2017 WL 5075380, at * 1. In October 2017, a Delaware Superior Court Commissioner issued a report recommending the denial of Petitioner's Rule 61 motion. See id. at *4. The Superior Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in September 2018 and denied the Rule 61 motion. See State v. Jobes, 2018 WL 4507651, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2018).

3

The Superior Court reissued the order on September 18, 2018 because Petitioner had not received timely notice of the January order. See State v. Jobes, 2018 WL 4507651 at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 19,2018). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment on February 25, 2018. See Jobes v. State, 206 A.3d 261 (Table), 2019 WL 949374, at *2 (Del. Feb. 25,2019).

IL GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) “to reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences ... and to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism.” Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 206 (2003). Pursuant to AEDPA, a federal court may consider a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner only “on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Additionally, AEDPA imposes procedural requirements and standards for analyzing the merits of a habeas petition in order to “prevent federal habeas ‘retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693 (2002).

4

B. Exhaustion and Procedural Default

Absent exceptional circumstances, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless the petitioner has exhausted all means of available relief under state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-44 (1999); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). AEDPA states in pertinent part:

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 unless it appears that -

(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or

(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). This exhaustion requirement, based on principles of comity, gives “state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process.” O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 844-45; see Werts v. Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178, 192 (3d Cir. 2000).

A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by demonstrating that the habeas claims were “fairly presented” to the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding, in a procedural manner permitting the court to consider the claims on their merits.

5

See Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447, 451 n.3 (2005); Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989). If the petitioner raised the issue on direct appeal in the correct procedural manner, the claim is exhausted and the petitioner does not need to raise the same issue again in a state postconviction proceeding. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997).

If a petitioner presents unexhausted habeas claims to a federal court, and further state court review of those claims is barred due to state procedural rules, the federal court will excuse the failure to exhaust and treat the claims as exhausted. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 732, 750-51 (1991) (such claims “meet[] the technical requirements for exhaustion” because state remedies are no longer available); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92-93 (2006). Such claims, however, are procedurally defaulted. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 749; Lines v. Larkins, 208 F.3d 153, 160 (3d Cir. 2000). Similarly, if a petitioner presents a habeas claim to the state's highest court, but that court “clearly and expressly” refuses to review the merits of the claim due to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, the claim is exhausted but procedurally defaulted. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 260-64 (1989).

Federal courts may not consider the merits of procedurally defaulted claims unless the petitioner demonstrates either cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice resulting therefrom, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will

6

result if the court does not review the claims. See McCandless v. Vaughn, 172 F.3d 255, 260 (3d Cir. 1999); Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750-51. To demonstrate cause for a procedural default, a petitioner must show that “some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel's efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule.” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478,488 (1986). To demonstrate actual prejudice, a petitioner must show that the errors during his trial created more than a possibility of prejudice; he must show that the errors worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.” Id. at 494.

Alternatively, if a petitioner demonstrates that a “constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent,”^[2] then a federal court can excuse the procedural default and review the claim in order to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000); Wenger v. Frank, 266 F.3d 218, 224 (3d Cir. 2001). The miscarriage of justice exception applies only in extraordinary cases, and actual innocence means factual innocence, not legal insufficiency. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998); Murray, 477 U.S. at 496. A petitioner establishes actual innocence by asserting “new reliable evidence-whether it be exculpatory

7

scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence-that was not presented at trial,” showing that no reasonable juror would have voted to find the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Hubbard v. Pinchak, 378 F.3d 333, 339-40 (3d Cir. 2004).

C. Standard of Review

If a state's highest court adjudicated a federal habeas claim on the merits, the federal court must review the claim under the deferential standard contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Pursuant to § 2254(d), federal habeas relief may only be granted if the state court's decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as...