Jones v. Wilder-Tomlinson

Decision Date04 September 2008
Docket NumberNo. C 06-4060-MWB.,C 06-4060-MWB.
Citation577 F.Supp.2d 1064
PartiesMisty Mina JONES, Petitioner, v. Diann WILDER-TOMLINSON, Warden.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Rockne Cole, Iowa City, IA, for Petitioner.

Sharon Kay Hall, Department of Justice, Des Moines, IA, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.   INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND................................................1066
                     A. Procedural Background...................................................1066
                     B. Factual Background......................................................1066
                II.  ANALYSIS...................................................................1070
                     A. Standard Of Review......................................................1070
                        1. Standard of review of report and recommendation......................1070
                        2. General standards for § 2254 relief.............................1073
                     B. Objections To Report And Recommendation................................1075
                       1. Adjudication on the Merits of the Probable Cause to Arrest Claim.....1075
                       2. Procedural default and the exhaustion requirement....................1076
                       3. Ineffective assistance of counsel analysis ..........................1077
                           a.  Validity of the traffic stop.....................................1078
                           b.  Validity of the arrest...........................................1078
                                i. Deficient performance........................................1079
                               ii. Prejudice....................................................1080
                III. CONCLUSION.................................................................1086
                
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A. Procedural Background

On July 25, 2007, the petitioner Misty Jones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 3. Jones is an inmate in the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women in Mitchellville, Iowa. Doc. No. 1. She was convicted, following a bench trial before the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. Doc. No. 20-2. She was later sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to twenty-five years and a fine of $5,000 for the possession with intent to deliver charge and five years with a suspended fine for the drug stamp charge. Id. at 53-54. On April 4, 2008, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for this matter, in which he recommended habeas corpus relief be granted. Doc. No. 31. Respondent Diann Wilder-Tomlinson (the State) filed objections to the report on April 14, 2008. Doc. No. 32.

B. Factual Background

In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Zoss made the following findings of fact:

On the afternoon of August 22, 2003, Jones was a passenger in a car driven by a friend, Bobbi Jo Linehan. Sioux City Police Officer Dane Wagner stopped the vehicle when he noticed a crack in the windshield that he believed crossed through the driver's line of sight. Linehan was arrested for failing to have a driver's license, and on an outstanding Illinois warrant. Officer Wagner asked Jones to get out of the car, and then he searched the car incident to Linehan's arrest. He located a small, silver scale. Upon questioning by the officer, Jones stated her father used the scale to weigh food. Linehan, questioned separately, stated the scale "looked like a scale used to weigh marijuana." Both women denied ownership of the scale. Officer Wagner disbelieved Jones's explanation about the scale's use, and because the scale was located in the vehicle in proximity to both women, Officer Wagner arrested both of them for possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of the Sioux City Municipal Code. See Doc. No. 6(f), Transcript of Suppression Hearing, at pp. 9-21; Doc. No. 20-2, Habeas Appendix ("Habeas App."), Ruling on Motion to Suppress in State v. Jones, No. FECR051916 (Woodbury County Dist. Ct. Aug. 12, 2004), at 6-9, 22-24.

When Jones arrived at the Woodbury County Jail, Officer Wagner discovered in Jones's hand "two to three Baggies with a white chunky substance in them[.]" Doc. No. 6, Item 1(k), Transcript of Bench Trial, at 22. Officer Wagner believed the substance to be methamphetamine. In addition, he found another Baggie containing suspected methamphetamine under the seat of his patrol car, directly underneath where Jones had been sitting. Id. at 23.

On August 23, 2003, the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County appointed the public defender's office to represent Jones. On August 27, 2003, the State of Iowa charged Jones with possession with intent to deliver more than five grams of methamphetamine, and a drug tax stamp violation. On September 3, 2003, Jones filed a written arraignment and a plea of not guilty.

On September 25, 2003, Jones's attorney filed, and the court granted, a motion to continue trial based on the unavailability of a lab report and videotape evidence, as well as counsel's unavailability for several weeks to recover from surgery. On December 4, 2003, Jones's attorney sought a further continuance, again due to the unavailability of the videotape, as well as the possible need to take depositions. The motion was granted, and the court set a new deadline of January 2, 2004, to complete depositions and file pretrial motions.

Jones retained attorney Martha McMinn, who filed an appearance on Jones's behalf on December 8, 2003. On February 5, 2004, McMinn deposed Officer Wagner, and on February 11, 2003[sic], McMinn filed a motion to suppress evidence and supporting memorandum. The State resisted the motion to suppress on procedural grounds, arguing the motion had not been filed within forty days of arraignment as required by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.11(4). Jones conceded the motion was filed late, but she argued her previous attorney was ineffective in failing to file a timely motion to suppress. She argued that because the motion was meritorious, it would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in any event if the motion was filed late, and therefore, she asked the court to rule on the merits of the motion. The State responded that Jones's previous attorney was not ineffective in failing to file the motion because the motion lacked merit.

John D. Ackerman, Judge of the Third Judicial District of Iowa, held a hearing on the motion to suppress on August 2, 2004. On August 12, 2004, Judge Ackerman denied the motion to suppress, sustaining the State's timeliness objection, and holding no good cause excused Jones's failure to file the motion timely. See Doc. No. 21 at App-54 to App-93, Ruling on Motion to Suppress. However, Judge Ackerman went on to discuss the merits of the motion, noting that if the decision to deny the motion on procedural grounds were reversed, then the court would have to address the merits anyway, whereas if the decision were upheld, then the court would be faced at some point with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Doc. No. 20-2, Habeas App. at 39.

Judge Ackerman first addressed the legality of the traffic stop for the cracked windshield. At the suppression hearing, Officer Wagner testified that although he had had prior contact with Jones, he did not recognize her as the passenger in the car before he stopped the vehicle. Judge Ackerman found the officer's testimony not to be credible on this point. He further found that a reasonable officer would not have believed the crack in the windshield obscured the driver's vision in any way (footnote omitted). He concluded the stop of the vehicle was completely pretextual, conducted for the specific purpose of investigating whether the vehicle's occupants were involved in drug trafficking or possession, and no probable cause existed for the stop. See id. at 39-42.

Judge Ackerman next addressed the issue of whether Officer Wagner had probable cause to arrest Jones for violating the drug paraphernalia ordinance. He held that the facts gave rise merely to a suspicion that the scale the officer found in the car violated the ordinance, but the facts "did not rise to the level that a reasonable and proper prudent person would believe that the drug paraphernalia statute had been violated." Id. at 43. Thus, despite Judge Ackerman's denial of the motion to suppress as untimely filed, he found the traffic stop was illegal and the officer lacked probable cause to arrest Jones. Id. at 43-44.

Jones filed a motion to reconsider on August 23, 2004, and the district court denied the motion on September 13, 2004. Jones waived her right to a jury trial, and a bench trial was held on October 12, 2004, before Third Judicial District Judge Mary Jane Sokolovske. On December 8, 2004, Judge Sokolovske issued a Ruling and Judgment Order, finding Jones guilty of possessing more than five grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(b)(7), a class B felony; and a drug tax stamp violation under Iowa Code § 453B, a class D felony. Id. at 48-52. On February 17, 2005, Judge Sokolovske sentenced Jones on the possession with intent charge to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years, with a mandatory minimum sentence of one-third of that time, and a fine of $5,000. Id. at 53-54. On the drug tax stamp charge, Jones was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed five years, to run concurrently with her sentence on the possession with intent charge, and a fine of $1,000.00, with the fine suspended. Id. at 54-55.

Jones filed a direct appeal of her conviction in which she raised the issues of whether her first attorney was ineffective in failing to file a timely motion to suppress, and whether the trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Escobedo v. Lund
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • June 3, 2013
    ...versus pleading guilty, either with or without a plea agreement, but denying relief on other claims). 6.See Jones v. Wilder–Tomlinson, 577 F.Supp.2d 1064 (N.D.Iowa 2008) (granting habeas relief pursuant to § 2254 to a state prisoner convicted of possession with intent to deliver methampheta......
  • Wilkins v. Ludwick, C13-4024-MWB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • July 21, 2014
    ...established federal law erroneously or incorrectly—the application must additionally be unreasonable." Jones v. Wilder-Tomlinson, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1073 (N.D. Iowa 2008) (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 411; Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S. Ct. 1843, 152 L. Ed. 2d 914 (2002) ("an un......
  • Powell v. Fayram
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • February 18, 2011
    ...new context where it should apply." Williams, 529 U.S. at 407, 120 S. Ct. 1495. As explained by Judge Bennett in Jones v. Wilder-Tomlinson, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Iowa 2008), "It is not enough that the state court applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly-the ap......
  • Escobedo v. Lund
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • September 6, 2012
    ...established federal law erroneously or incorrectly—the application must additionally be unreasonable." Jones v. Wilder-Tomlinson, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1073 (N.D. Iowa 2008) (Bennett, J.) (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 411; Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S. Ct. 1843, 152 L. Ed. 2d 914 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT