Martin v. Singletary, 92-4411

• Decision Date: 11 May 1992
• Docket Number: No. 92-4411,92-4411
• Parties: Nollie Lee MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 944

965 F.2d 944

Nollie Lee MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Secretary, Florida Department of

Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-4411.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 11, 1992.

Richard H. Burr, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, New York City, for petitioner-appellant.

Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before KRAVITCH, HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER:

Petitioner-Appellant Nollie Lee Martin, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appeals from a District Court order denying his Petition for Habeas Corpus. In this, his third federal habeas petition, Martin raised four claims:

1. The sentencer's consideration of the "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating factor at the penalty phase violated Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988), and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (the "Maynard claim");

2. The operation of Florida law restricted Martin's trial counsel's efforts to develop and present nonstatutory mitigating evidence in violation of Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), and the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments (the "Hitchcock claim");

3. Martin was denied the competent assistance of a crucial mental health expert under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (the "Ake claim");

4. Martin's trial and sentencing proceedings were constitutionally defective due to the prosecution's deliberate and knowing presentation and use of false evidence and argument, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1967), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) (the "Brady/ Giglio claim").

The district court granted a Stay of Execution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251 on May 6, 1992, and held a hearing on May 7, 1992, to permit the parties a full opportunity to be heard on the issues raised by the petition. After hearing the evidence presented at oral argument, the District Court ruled that all four of Petitioner's claims for relief are either abusive or successive. Regarding the first three claims, the court found that Martin failed to include the Maynard challenge in either of his prior federal habeas petitions; that an essentially identical Hitchcock claim was raised in his second petition and adjudicated on the merits, see Martin v. Dugger, 686 F.Supp. 1523, 1527-28 (S.D.Fla.1988), aff'd, 891 F.2d 807 (11th Cir.1989); and that the Ake claim was raised in the 1984 petition and was adjudicated on the merits, see Martin, 84-8426-CIV-KING (Sept. 5, 1984 at 3), aff'd, 770 F.2d 918, 933 (11th Cir.1985). The court did not reach the merits of any of these claims because it found that Petitioner did not establish the cause or prejudice necessary to overcome the procedural bar to hearing a successive or abusive petition. See McCleskey v. Zant, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). The court further found that Martin failed to establish that he was "actually innocent" of the death penalty such that a denial of his petition would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Johnson v. Singletary, 938 F.2d 1166, 1183 (11th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. pending. ¹

As to the Brady/ Giglio claim, included in the amended petition, the district court held that Martin had not shown excusable neglect for his failure to bring this claim in an earlier petition. Moreover, the court found that the letter discovered by Martin did not establish that the State had withheld evidence and did not establish that an "actually innocent" defendant was convicted or sentenced to death.

For the reasons set out in the District Court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion, we agree that all four of the Petitioner's claims are abusive or successive and that Petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary cause or prejudice to overcome these procedural bars to review. Further, Petitioner has not established that he is actually innocent of his conviction or his...