Kline v. State, 3:20cv4491-LC/MAF

• Decision Date: 15 July 2021
• Docket Number: 3:20cv4491-LC/MAF
• Parties: RICHARD KEVIN KLINE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

RICHARD KEVIN KLINE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

No. 3:20cv4491-LC/MAF

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

July 15, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On March 5, 2020, Petitioner Richard Kevin Kline, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On August 24, 2020, Respondent filed an answer and exhibits. ECF No. 11. Petitioner filed a reply on April 27, 2021. ECF No. 14.

The matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 72.2(B). After careful consideration of all issues raised the undersigned has determined that no evidentiary hearing is required for disposition of this case. See Rule 8(a), R. Gov. § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. The pleadings and attachments before the Court show Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief and this § 2254 petition should be denied.

Background and Procedural History

By information filed October 28, 2014, in Escambia County Circuit Court case number 2014-CF-4593, the State of Florida charged Petitioner Richard Kevin Kline with second degree murder, in violation of section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes in connection with events that occurred on or about September 30, 2014, to October 6, 2014, involving the death of Jolena Kline, Petitioner's wife. Ex. A at 1.^[1] Kline proceeded to a jury trial which began April 4, 2016. Exs. B-C. Kline testified in his defense. Ex. C at 251-54, 258-94. On April 6, 2016, the judge declared a mistrial because the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Ex. C at 384.

On August 1, 2016, Kline again proceeded to a jury trial. Ex E-G. Kline did not testify at the second trial. See Ex. F at 369-72. On August 3, 2016, the jury found him guilty as charged. Ex. A at 152; Ex. G at 476-78. On September 2 2016, the court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to life in prison, with credit for time served since his arrest on October 15, 2014. Ex. A at 177-84 (judgment and sentence), 270; id. at 254-72 (sentencing transcript).

Kline appealed his judgment and sentence to the First District Court of Appeal (DCA), assigned case number 1D16-4338. Ex. A at 193; Ex. H. The initial brief raised one point: “The circuit court erred in denying [Kline's] motions for a judgment of acquittal at each trial.” Ex. H at i. The State filed an answer brief. Ex. I. Kline filed a reply. Ex. J. In an opinion filed August 10, 2017, the First DCA affirmed Kline's judgment and sentence, explaining “the evidence singularly pointed to Appellant as the only possible suspect” and “the State's evidence was sufficient for the jury to find within ‘a reasonable and moral certainty' that Appellant, and no one else, committed the charged offense.” Kline v. State, 223 So.3d 482, 484, 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); Ex. K. The mandate issued August 31, 2017. Ex. K. Kline did not seek to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.

On April 25, 2018, Kline filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Ex. L at 9-56. By order rendered October 26, 2018, the state post-conviction trial court summarily denied relief. Id. at 57-73 (exclusive of attachments). Kline appealed and filed an initial brief, pro se, assigned case number 1D18-5324. Ex. M. The State did not file an answer brief. See Ex. N. The First DCA affirmed the case without a written opinion on December 11, 2019. Ex. O; Kline v. State, 285 So.3d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (table). The mandate issued on January 8, 2020. Ex. O.

As indicated above, Kline filed a § 2254 petition in this Court on March 5, 2020. ECF No. 1. He raises seven grounds, including six claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC):

(1) IAC - No. Objection to Prosecutor Submitting Kline's Testimony from the First Trial: “This is a 14th U.S.C.A. violation due to counsel's failure to object to the prosecution submitting a testimony from a previous trial, ” as “counsel failed to notify Mr. Kline that his testimony from his first trial would be used against him by the State in his second trial.” ECF No. 1 at 9.

(2) IAC - Plea Offer: “This is a 14th U.S.C.A. violation due to counsel's failure for not properly advising Mr. Kline regarding the plea offer from the State, ” as he “was not aware of the reason why the State's original plea offer before his first trial increased after a mistrial in his first trial.” Id. at 11. Kline states he “declined the State's increased plea offer before the second trial, due to defense counsel not informing [him] of the new evidence being presented in his second trial that was not in his first trial.” Id.

(3) IAC - No. Motion to Suppress: “This is a 14th U.S.C.A. violation due to counsel's failure to [file a] motion for the suppression of evidence, ” where “[t]here was no search warrant obtained for the GPS location information of Mr. Kline's vehicle” and “[t]he information was given to law enforcement by a civilian without the permission of Mr. Kline.” Id. at 13. Kline asserts counsel should have sought to suppress “the evidence that was obtained illegally without a proper search warrant.” Id.

(4) IAC - No. Mental Health Expert: “This is a 14th U.S.C.A. violation due to counsel's failure to obtain a mental health expert for mitigating circumstances before, during, and after trial.” Id. at 15. Kline asserts he “suffers from mental health issues and did not fully understand the legality of [the] plea offers or the evidence against him and no mental health experts were sought to help in the determination of any mitigating circumstances that could [have] been presented to the judge to assist at trial or at sentencing.” Id.

(5) IAC - Failure to Investigate: “This is a 14th U.S.C.A. violation due to counsel's failure to investigate, cross-examine, and obtain expert witnesses that would [have] assisted the defense.” Id. at 18. Kline asserts “there were multiple factions of favorable evidence that if defense counsel would [have] investigated, it would [have] proved Mr. Kline's innocence, ” such as “a third party's DNA that was never examined, fingerprints that were never obtained, and the failure of defense counsel to obtain witnesses or cross-examine witnesses that would [have] created reasonable doubt.” Id.

(6) IAC - Cumulative: “This is a 14th U.S.C.A. violation due to counsel's cumulative deficiencies in representing the defendant.” Id. at 19.

(7) Post-Conviction Court Error - No. Evidentiary Hearing: “This is a 14th U.S.C.A. violation by lack of due process of law for a full criminal post-conviction review, when an evidentiary hearing was not granted.” Id. at 20. Kline asserts “he was not given a full opportunity to present the factual findings of each of his grounds submitted in his post-conviction 3.850 due to not receiving an evidentiary hearing to build the face of the record to adequately address the defendant's grounds for relief, ” resulting in a violation of due process. Id. He further asserts, “Under Rule 12 of the Fed. R. Crip. P. due to not having a full opportunity to develop an argument before the court requires the submission of an evidentiary hearing to establish the validity of the defendant's claims.” Id. In addition, the judge “did not state any findings of decisional law to support his denial of the post-conviction 3.850 motion” and the judge “must state U.S. Supreme Court law to which the State failed in its corrective process.” Id.

Respondent filed an answer and exhibits. ECF No. 11. Petitioner Kline has filed a reply. ECF No. 14.

Analysis

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), federal courts may grant habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody. Section 2254(d) provides, 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 with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See, e.g., Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180-83 (2011); Gill v. Mecusker, 633 F.3d 1272, 1287-88 (11th Cir. 2011). “This is a ‘difficult to meet' and ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'” Cullen, 563 U.S. at 181 (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011), and Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002)). This Court's review “is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Id.

For claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), the United States Supreme Court has adopted a two-part test:

First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To...