Lacy v. Payne
| Docket Number | 5:19-cv-95-DPM |
| Decision Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Parties | BRANDON LACY PETITIONER v. DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
1. Brandon Lacy seeks habeas relief from his state court convictions and death sentence for killing and robbing Randy Walker. Lacy confessed to killing Walker. But he said that he did so without the premeditation and deliberation required for capital murder. Lacy also argued that he did not commit aggravated robbery -as an independent offense or a capital felony murder element. A Benton County jury rejected all these defenses, finding Lacy guilty of capital murder and aggravated robbery. At sentencing, the jury found many mitigating circumstances and two aggravating circumstances - Lacy committed the murder in a cruel and depraved manner and for the purpose of avoiding arrest. Deciding that the two aggravators outweighed the mitigators, the jury chose the death penalty for the capital murder. The jury agreed on a life sentence for the robbery. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, Lacy v. State (Lacy I), 2010 Ark. 388, 377 S.W.3d 227, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Lacy v Arkansas, 563 U.S. 964 (2011) (Mem.).
Lacy's case for post-conviction relief went up and down in the Arkansas courts. After the Benton County Circuit Court rejected Lacy's arguments on the papers, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Lacy v. State (Lacy II), 2013 Ark. 34, 425 S.W.3d 746. After hearing evidence, the circuit court found Lacy was entitled to resentencing due to his trial lawyers' penalty phase ineffectiveness. The Supreme Court again reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court erroneously used a subjective test in evaluating the lawyers' performance. State v. Lacy (Lacy III), 2016 Ark. 38, 480 S.W.3d 856. On remand, the circuit court reviewed the lawyers' work under an objective standard, and denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed. Lacy v. State (Lacy IV), 2018 Ark. 174, 545 S.W.3d 746. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Lacy v. Arkansas, 139 S.Ct. 805 (2019) (Mem.). Having exhausted his state court remedies, Lacy filed this timely federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
2. Factual Background.
Lacy's defense was that significant details about the murder were and are missing-and he was too drunk to remember them. He didn't testify at trial. But his recorded statements and the physical evidence tell most of the story.
After an evening of drinking, Lacy and Brody Laswell showed up at Walker's trailer in Garfield, Arkansas. Lacy and Walker had met through Lacy's estranged wife; Walker sometimes gave rides to Lacy. It was shortly after midnight when Lacy and Laswell awakened Walker. The three gathered in the living room. For reasons not entirely clear, conflict erupted. Walker had a .22 caliber pistol that Lacy had sold him a few years earlier. Whether Walker pulled the pistol is murky. What is undisputed is that Walker, who suffered from multiple sclerosis, was no match for Lacy and Laswell. While Walker was sitting in his recliner, Lacy hit him over the head with a fireplace poker, as Walker repeatedly asked "Why?" Trial Record 3540. Lacy shut the living room window because he didn't want neighbors to hear Walker's cries.
Lacy got control of the .22 caliber pistol. He knew Walker had a safe, and he forced Walker into the bedroom to open it. Lacy expected to find "some money or something," but the safe was empty. Trial Record 3550. Walker then began to fight back, struggling with Lacy for the pistol. Laswell picked up a weight bar and struck Walker in the head. As Walker lay incapacitated on the bedroom floor, Lacy believed that he was "already gone," Trial Record 3602, but he wanted "to make sure," Trial Record 3625. Lacy stabbed Walker's chest several times with the fireplace poker and then used a kitchen knife to slit Walker's throat down to his spine. After Laswell went to the car, Lacy used gasoline to start a fire near Walker's body. He left the trailer with the items that he used to kill Walker. He also took Walker's wallet, which contained twenty dollars, and the .22 caliber pistol.
Lacy and Laswell headed to the Monte Ne boat ramp on Beaver Lake, near Lacy's grandparents' home. They washed off Walker's blood in Beaver Lake and then tried to get rid of the other evidence: They threw the fireplace set, including the poker and shovel, in the lake; they burned their clothes, the knife, and Walker's wallet nearby. Lacy hid the stolen pistol at his cousin's apartment.
Later that day, Lacy's estranged wife, Melissa Lacy, and her boyfriend, David Weaver, found Walker's burned body on the bedroom floor of his trailer. The medical examiner concluded that the three sets of injuries - the blunt-force head trauma, the stabbing chest wounds, and the cutting neck wound-were independently fatal and combined to cause Walker's death.
Three days after killing Walker, Lacy called 911, confessed to the murder, and asked to be arrested. He was intoxicated, as he often was. So Benton County Sheriff's Office investigators waited until the next morning to hear more. Over three interviews, Lacy told how he and Laswell[1] killed Walker. The interviews were peppered with Lacy's responses that he could not recall details. But he remembered stabbing Walker in the chest, slitting his throat, and taking the pistol.
3. Standard Of Review.
The governing law is settled. Lacy, a state prisoner, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, if he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treatises of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The United States Supreme Court, however, considers habeas relief an "extraordinary remedy," which guards against "extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,102 (2011). Quoting Harrington, the Supreme Court has re-emphasized this limited role of habeas corpus in two recent cases. Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, 596 U.S. __, 142 S.Ct. 1718, 1731 (2022) (quotations omitted); Brown v. Davenport (Mike Brown), 596 U.S. __, 142 S.Ct. 1510, 1523-24 (2022) (quotations omitted). The habeas statutory scheme, moreover, is "designed to strongly discourage" petitioners from offering new evidence. Shoop v. Twyford, 596 U.S.__, 142 S.Ct. 2037, 2044 (2022) (quotations omitted).
Before seeking habeas review, Lacy must have exhausted available state remedies by fairly presenting each of his claims in state court. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). This Court will not review questions of federal law decided in state court if the state court's decision was based on "a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman, 501 U.S. at 729-30. A "firmly established and regularly followed" state procedural rule, even if discretionary, can be an adequate ground to bar habeas review. Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 60 (2009) (quotations omitted). Procedural default also occurs when a petitioner fails to present a claim in state court and a state court remedy is no longer available. O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 848. A procedural default can occur at any point during state court review: at trial, on direct appeal, or during post-conviction proceedings. Kilmartin v. Kemna, 253 F.3d 1087,1088 (8th Cir. 2001).
Cause And Prejudice.
If a claim is procedurally defaulted, this Court can consider it only if Lacy establishes either cause for the default and actual prejudice, or that the default will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750. To establish cause, Lacy 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).
Examples of cause include constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, an unavailable factual or legal basis for a claim, or interference by state officials that made complying with exhaustion requirements impracticable. 477 U.S. at 488-89. The prejudice element generally requires Lacy to show "not merely that the errors at . .. trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions." 477 U.S. at 494 (emphasis original and quotations omitted).
Exhausted Claims.
On claims adjudicated on the merits in state court, this Court may grant habeas relief only if Lacy satisfies statutory requirements and United States Supreme Court "precedents governing the appropriate exercise of equitable discretion." Mike Brown, 142 S.Ct. at 1524. Lacy must demonstrate that the state court adjudication "(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). A decision is contrary to federal law if the state court "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law" set out by the Supreme Court, or if it considers facts that are "materially indistinguishable" from a Supreme Court case and decides differently. Brown v. Pay ton, 544 U.S. 133, 141 (2005). Lacy also must pass the Brecht test for assessing the state court error's prejudicial effect. Mike Brown, 142 S.Ct. at 1524. He must show that the error had "substantial and injurious...
To continue reading
Request your trial