Jones v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 19 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 04-119-SLR.,CIV.A. 04-119-SLR.
• Citation: 388 F.Supp.2d 413
• Parties: Claude A. JONES, Petitioner, v. Thomas CARROLL, Warden, and M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

388 F.Supp.2d 413

Claude A. JONES, Petitioner, v. Thomas CARROLL, Warden, and M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents.

No. CIV.A. 04-119-SLR.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

September 19, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Claude A. Jones, pro se petitioner.

Loren C. Meyers, Chief of Appeals Division, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUE L. ROBINSON, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the court is petitioner Claude A. Jones' ("petitioner") application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (D.I.2) Petitioner is a Delaware inmate in custody at the Delaware Correctional Institution in Smyrna, Delaware. For the reasons that follow, the court will dismiss his application.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 1999, petitioner was in the cookie aisle of a supermarket, accompanied by a young girl who later proved to be his daughter. A store employee observed the girl removing items from the shelves and placing them in her backpack. The employee approached petitioner and asked that he return the items to the shelves. Petitioner cursed at the employee and, claiming to have a gun, made a movement with his hand. He and his daughter quickly left the store. Jones v. State, 803 A.2d 428 (Table), 2002 WL 1522941, at *1 (Del. July 10, 2002).

Two other employees pursued petitioner into the parking lot and ordered him to stop. He cursed at them, threatened to shoot them, and partially withdrew an object from his pocket that one employee described as a "dark, bluish" revolver, and the other employee described as a "brown object." Both employees stopped pursuing petitioner, and petitioner and his daughter fled in a car driven by a third individual. One of the employees wrote down the license plate number and turned it over to the police. Further investigation led to petitioner's arrest. Id.; (D.I. 11 at ¶ 2).

In November 1999, a grand jury indicted petitioner on three counts of first degree robbery (one count for each of the three store employees he had threatened) and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. During his jury trial in the Delaware Superior Court, petitioner did not deny that he was in the store at the time of the incident, but he claimed that he never threatened anyone and he never displayed a weapon. At the end of the trial, the Superior Court judge granted petitioner's motion to dismiss the two robbery counts involving the two employees in the store parking lot because those counts alleged use of force to overcome "resistance to the taking of the property" rather than the use of force for "the retention thereof immediately after the taking." (D.I.11) However, the Superior Court judge refused to dismiss the robbery count involving the store incident, because that count alleged that petitioner, "in the course of committing theft did thereafter use force upon [the store employee] and ... in immediate flight therefrom, he displayed what appeared to be a gun, a deadly weapon." Jones, 2002 WL 1522941, at *1. The judge also refused to deliver a lesser included offense instruction as to the remaining robbery count.

The jury convicted petitioner of one count of first degree robbery and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In September 2000, the Superior Court sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment, suspended after 8 years for 17 years probation.

Petitioner's attorney did not file an appeal. Instead, in November 2000, his attorney filed a motion pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) to correct sentence, which the Superior Court denied on November 8, 2001. Petitioner's attorney appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the weapons and robbery convictions.

On April 5, 2002, while the Rule 35(a) appeal was pending, petitioner filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. This motion alleged that petitioner's attorney had provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a direct appeal of his sentence, despite petitioner's request that he do so.

On April 15, 2002 the Superior Court held an office conference with petitioner's attorney. As a result of the conference, the Superior Court vacated its November 8, 2001 order denying the Rule 35(a) motion and granted the Rule 35(a) motion. On April 16, 2002, the Superior Court vacated petitioner's September 29, 2000 sentence and reinstated the sentence in order to give petitioner an opportunity to appeal. (D.I. 13, App. to Appellant's Op. Br. in No. 665,2002, Exh. A: Del.Super. Ct.Crim. Dkt. Nos. 26-28)

On April 25, 2002, petitioner's counsel filed an appellate brief. (D.I. 13, Appellant's Op. Br. in No. 622,2001) He argued that the Superior Court should have dismissed the remaining robbery count because it suffered from the same deficiency as the other two robbery counts that were dismissed, namely, it charged petitioner "with intent to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of property" rather than "the retention thereof immediately after the taking." (D.I. 13, Appellant's Op. Br. in Jones v. State, No.622,2001, at 10)

On May 22, 2002, the Superior Court denied without prejudice petitioner's pro se Rule 61 motion, finding that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion because petitioner's case was on appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court. (D.I. 13, App. to Appellant's Op. Br. in No. 665,2002, at A-11)

On July 10, 2002, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence. The state supreme court held that the testimony of the two store employees who pursued petitioner into the parking lot provided sufficient evidence in describing the gun to prove the weapon element of first degree robbery with respect to petitioner's actions in the store. Jones, 2002 WL 1522941, at *1.

In September 2002, petitioner filed another pro se Rule 61 motion, this time alleging: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial and on direct appeal, as well as ineffective assistance for failing to file a timely notice of appeal in the first place; and (2) the Delaware Superior Court or the Delaware Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider his direct appeal and issue the order dated July 10, 2002, thus, the whole appellate proceeding was not the result of a logical and orderly deductive process. (D.I. 13, Appellant's Op. Br. in Jones v. State, No. 665,2002) The Superior Court treated the second Rule 61 motion as if it was petitioner's first one, and denied it as meritless. (D.I. 13, Appellant's Op. Br. in No. 665,2002, Exh.: Letter Order, I.D. No. 9910022380 (Del.Super.Ct. Nov. 7, 2002)). Petitioner appealed, arguing that: (1) the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to vacate and reinstate his sentence; (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a timely direct appeal; and (3) there was insufficient evidence introduced at trial to support his convictions. Jones v. State, 825 A.2d 238 (Table), 2003 WL 21254621, at *1 (Del. May 30, 2003). The Delaware Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. Id.

Thereafter, petitioner filed the habeas application currently before the court. His application essentially asserts three claims¹ for relief: (1) the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to vacate and reinstate his September 2001 sentence, thereby violating his right to due process; (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a timely direct appeal, and by continuing to represent petitioner during his appeal despite the fact that counsel's failure to file a timely appeal created a "conflict of interest"; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his first degree robbery conviction. (D.I.2)

The State filed an answer, asking the court to dismiss the entire application, to which petitioner filed a response. (D.I. 11; D.I. 14)

Petitioner's habeas application is ready for review.

III. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 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). AEDPA increases the deference federal courts must give to state court decisions, primarily by imposing procedural requirements and standards "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, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002); see Woodford, 538 U.S. at 206, 123 S.Ct. 1398.

B. Exhaustion and Procedural Default

Before seeking habeas relief from a federal court, a petitioner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment must exhaust all remedies available in the state courts. As stated in 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 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). The exhaustion requirement is grounded on principles of comity in order to ensure that state courts have the initial opportunity...