Land v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 23 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:21-cv-10-TKW/MJF |
| Parties | JENNIFER MARLIANA LAND, Petitioner, v. RICKY D. DIXON,[1] Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
JENNIFER MARLIANA LAND, Petitioner,
v.
RICKY D. DIXON,[1] Respondent.
No. 5:21-cv-10-TKW/MJF
United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
May 23, 2022
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Frank, United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Jennifer M. Land has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. Respondent (“the State”) answered, providing relevant portions of the state court record. Doc. 12. Land replied. Doc. 14. The undersigned concludes that no evidentiary hearing is required for the disposition of this matter, and that Land is not entitled to habeas relief.[2]
I. Background Facts and Procedural History
On September 28, 2016, a Florida jury found Land guilty of Dealing in Stolen Property as charged in Washington County Circuit Court Case No. 2015-CF-284. Doc. 12-1, Ex. A at 43.[3] Land's conviction was based on the following trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Doc. 12-1, Ex. B (Trial Tr.); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).[4]
The victim in this case, Nicholas Bailey, owned a home-remodeling and landscaping business with his business partner. Land and her boyfriend, Chad Morris, performed landscaping work for Bailey's business and at Bailey's residence. Occasionally when Land was at Bailey's residence doing landscaping, Bailey's pickup truck-which had a dog box in the bed-was on the property and viewable by Land. Shortly before March 2015, Bailey's business partner fired Land and Morris.
In March 2015, Bailey returned from a vacation to find that his home had been burglarized and his F-350 truck-which contained the dog box and other items- had been stolen. Bailey described the dog box as customized to include an extended water spout and a side box to hold weapons. See Doc. 12-2, Ex. D at 375-82 (Tr. Exs. - Photographs). Bailey had purchased the dog box for between $800 and $1,000.
Bailey called the police and reported the theft. Bailey identified Morris as a suspect. Bailey also showed the investigator (Captain Mark Collins) a picture of his truck containing the dog box.
Approximately six months after the burglary, on September 18, 2015, Bailey was looking on the internet site “Craigslist” for a replacement dog box. Bailey stumbled upon an advertisement selling his stolen dog box. Bailey took a screenshot of the advertisement and sent it to the police. Bailey eventually recovered his truck and the dog box.
Captain Mark Collins testified that after responding to the burglary in March 2015, he did not have enough evidence to make an arrest. On June 9, 2015, Collins executed a search warrant at Morris's home. Land also lived in that home. Morris's home was approximately one mile from Bailey's home. Collins found Bailey's property inside Morris's home. Morris then led Collins and other officers to Bailey's truck, which was concealed deep in a wooded area. The dog box was not in the truck.
Land arrived while the police were executing the search warrant and she became aware that Bailey's property and truck were seized from the home and nearby wooded area. Land was wearing boots that belonged to Bailey, which she surrendered to Captain Collins. As Collins was leaving Morris's home, he told Land that the police still were looking for other missing property belonging to Bailey, and that “should she have any contact with any property or anything of any nature, before she did anything with it, to give me a call.” Doc. 12-1, Ex. B at 281-82.
After Bailey contacted Collins on September 18, 2015 about the Craigslist advertisement, Collins located the advertisement, which stated:
DIAMOND DELUXE T-STYLE “cadillac” of all dog boxes. Has tool boxes on both sides with water tank in between for your added convenience
Fits full size truck bed. Paid $1500 asking only $800/obo.
Doc. 12-2, Ex. D at 386.
Collins obtained an address for the person selling the dog box. Collins drove to that address and found Bailey's dog box in plain view in the back of a pickup truck. Collins made contact with the people inside that residence: Phillip Roberts and January Temenbaum.
Phillip Roberts testified that Land brought the dog box to his home. As far as Roberts knew, the box belonged to Land. Roberts, Temenbaum, and Land took the
dog box to a flea market in Alabama to try to sell it. Roberts was helping Land because she needed money to pay her power bill.
January Temenbaum testified that she and Roberts were engaged to be married and that she and Land were friends. In September 2015, Land asked Temenbaum for her help in selling a dog box. Land did not tell Temenbaum where she obtained the box or that it was stolen. Temenbaum, Land, and Roberts took the dog box to a flea market in Alabama, but they were unable to sell it. Temenbaum suggested to Land that she advertise the box on Craigslist. Temenbaum and Land took pictures of the box and Temenbaum posted the advertisement on Craigslist. Land told Temenbaum that she could not post the advertisement because she did not have internet service at her home. Land also told Temenbaum that she needed money from the sale of the box to pay her electric bill because her power was being turned off.
After Captain Collins spoke with Roberts and Temenbaum, he seized the dog box and made contact with Land. Land waived her Miranda rights and gave a statement to Collins.
In her statement, Land told Collins that Morris had three dog boxes back in 2011; that he gave two of them to his dad; and that the third one was kept at Land's mother's home behind a shed. Land said that after Morris left the residence in June
2015, she found herself in a financial bind and was selling anything and everything to pay her bills. Land stated that she took the dog box to the flea market but was not able to sell it. Land feared that her electricity was going to be disconnected for nonpayment, so she asked Temenbaum to post an advertisement on Craigslist. Land stated that she could not post the advertisement herself because she did not have internet service. Land explained to Collins: “That's the only reason why, I mean, I took to Sadie's [flea market] and I was trying to sell it myself at Sadie's, but I just did not have internet to be able to post i[t] online.” Doc. 12-1, Ex. B at 271.
Land claimed that she did not know the dog box was stolen. When Captain Collins confronted Land with the fact that he viewed her Facebook page that day and saw that she updated her cover photograph three days prior, Land told him that she used her phone to make the update. Land admitted that she had internet service on her phone. Collins testified that internet service was necessary to access Facebook.
Collins testified on cross-examination that he gets upset when people he interviews lie to him. It was evident to him that Land lied to him when she told him that she did not have internet service.
Defense counsel elicited testimony from Bailey that although his dog box was customized and he could recognize it, there was no serial number on it and there
were similar-looking dog boxes in the area where he lived. Counsel elicited testimony from Roberts and Temenbaum that the dog box Land tried to sell looked to them like an ordinary dog box.
After the State rested, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied the motion. Land chose not to testify.
After the jury returned its verdict, the trial court adjudicated Land guilty of Dealing in Stolen Property and sentenced her to 10 years of imprisonment. Doc. 121, Ex. A at 86-94 (J. & Sentence). The Florida First District Court of Appeal (“First DCA”) affirmed the judgment and sentence per curiam and without written opinion. Land v. State, 239 So.3d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 15, 2018) (Table) (copy at Doc. 12-2, Ex. H).
After unsuccessfully challenging her sentence, Land filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which she twice amended. Doc. 12-3, Ex. P at 267-84 (Second Am. Mot. for Postconviction Relief), and 285-94 (Mem.). The state circuit court summarily denied relief. Doc. 12-3, Ex. Q at 3-251. The First DCA affirmed per curiam and without written opinion. Land v. State, 298 So.3d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA July 2, 2020) (copy at Doc. 12-3, Ex. T). The mandate issued July 30, 2020. Doc. 12-3, Ex. U.
Land filed her prose federal habeas petition on January 11, 2021, raising four claims. Doc. 1. The parties agree that Land exhausted her state remedies by presenting all of her claims to the state courts in her Rule 3.850 proceeding. Doc. 1 at 14; Doc. 12 at 13. The State asserts that Land is not entitled to habeas relief because she fails to satisfy § 2254(d)'s demanding standard. Doc. 12 at 18-56.
II. Relevant Legal Principles
A. Section 2254 Standard of Review
A federal court “shall not” grant a habeas corpus petition on any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court's decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The United States Supreme Court explained the framework for § 2254 review in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).[5] Justice O'Connor described the appropriate test:
Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable
facts. Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial