McCleaf v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 28 February 2006
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.04-1296 JJF.,CIV.A.04-1296 JJF.
• Citation: 416 F.Supp.2d 283
• Parties: Anthony McCLEAF, Petitioner, v. Thomas L. CARROLL, Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

416 F.Supp.2d 283

Anthony McCLEAF, Petitioner, v. Thomas L. CARROLL, Warden, Respondent.

No. CIV.A.04-1296 JJF.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

February 28, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Anthony McCleaf, Smyrna, DE, Pro se Petitioner.

Thomas E. Brown, Deputy Attorney General of the Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FARNAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is an Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition") filed by Petitioner Anthony McCleaf. (D.I.1.) For the reasons discussed, the Court will dismiss the Petition and deny the relief requested.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 1999, Petitioner stole nine pairs of men's jeans from the Strawbridge's department store located in the Dover Mall. After reviewing the store surveillance videotape, Dover Police Officer Scott Sealund arrested Petitioner. Officer Sealund asked Petitioner for his name and identification. Petitioner responded that he did not have any identification and his name was Anthony R. Miller.

Officer Sealund transported Petitioner to the Dover Police Department. While filling out Petitioner's arrest card, Officer Sealund warned Petitioner that he could be charged with criminal impersonation and second degree forgery if the information he provided was incorrect. Nevertheless, Petitioner signed the arrest card in the name of Anthony R. Miller. Petitioner also provided the police with an incorrect date and place of birth, and a false Social Security number.

After fingerprinting Petitioner, Officer Sealund discovered that Petitioner's name was not Anthony R. Miller. Officer Sealund then advised Petitioner that he was under arrest for criminal impersonation and second degree forgery. Petitioner provided a different birthdate, Social Security number, place of birth and tattoo description for his second arrest card. Petitioner also admitted that Anthony R. Miller was his brother's name.

Following a February 2000 bench trial in the Delaware Superior Court, Petitioner was found guilty of second degree forgery, shoplifting, and criminal impersonation. Petitioner was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years imprisonment for the forgery conviction and thirty days imprisonment for his conviction on the remaining charges. Petitioner was also sentenced to probation following his incarceration.

Through his counsel, Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. While his appeal was pending, Petitioner filed an affidavit with the Delaware Supreme Court indicating that he wanted to discharge his attorney. The Delaware Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Delaware Superior Court to determine if Petitioner wished to proceed pro se on appeal. When the Delaware Superior Court conducted a hearing on the representation issue, Petitioner stated that he had changed his mind and did not wish to proceed pro se. Petitioner proceeded on appeal with counsel, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.

In March 2002, Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion") in the Delaware Superior Court. The Delaware Superior Court denied the motion, and Petitioner appealed. The State filed a motion to affirm, and the Delaware Supreme Court granted the State's motion on all but one issue, Petitioner's claim that the sentence imposed for second degree forgery violated the Eighth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court appointed counsel to represent Petitioner for the limited purpose of briefing the Eighth Amendment issue. McCleaf v. State, No.684,2002, Order (Del. July 29, 2003). After briefing, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected Petitioner's Eighth Amendment claim and affirmed the Delaware Superior Court's denial of Petitioner's Rule 61 motion. McCleaf v. State, 842 A.2d 1244, 2004 WL 344423 (Del.2004).

II. GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A district court can entertain a state prisoner's application for federal habeas relief only on the ground that his custody violates the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Absent exceptional circumstances, a federal court cannot review a habeas petition on the merits unless the petitioner has exhausted his remedies under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-44, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by presenting his claim to the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999); See Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir.1997).

If the state's highest court adjudicates a federal habeas claim on the merits, then a federal court must review the claim under the standard contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Section 2254(d)(1) only permits federal habeas relief if the state court's decision is "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," or the state court's decision is an unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence adduced in the trial. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2001). When reviewing a habeas claim, a federal court must presume that the state court's determinations of factual issues are correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). This presumption of correctness applies to both explicit and implicit findings of fact, Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280, 286 (3d Cir.2000), and is only rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 341, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003)(stating that the clear and convincing standard in § 2254(e)(1) applies to factual issues, whereas the unreasonable application standard of § 2254(d)(2) applies to factual decisions).

If a petitioner fairly presents a habeas claim to the state's highest court, but the state court refuses to consider the claim because the petitioner failed to comply with an independent and adequate state procedural rule, the claim is deemed exhausted but procedurally defaulted. Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989); Werts, 228 F.3d at 192. A federal court cannot review the merits of procedurally defaulted claims unless the petitioner demonstrates either cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice resulting therefrom, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result if the court does not review the claims. McCandless v. Vaughn, 172 F.3d 255, 260 (3d Cir. 1999); Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750-51, 111 S.Ct. 2546.; Caswell v. Ryan, 953 F.2d 853, 861-62 (3d Cir.1992); Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000); Wenger v. Frank, 266 F.3d 218, 224 (3d Cir.2001). The miscarriage of justice exception applies only in extraordinary cases where a "constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent." Murray, 477 U.S. at 496, 106 S.Ct. 2639.

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner presents five grounds for federal habeas relief:¹ (1) the sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute violates due process, equal protection, and the Eight Amendment; (2) his counsel was constitutionally ineffective during the trial, on appeal, and on post-conviction appeal; (3) the Superior Court violated his right to self-representation during the post-conviction proceedings; (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for second and degree forgery; and (5) his conviction was based on a police officer's false testimony. (D.I. 1; D.I. 12.)

A. The Constitutionality Of Petitioner's Sentence Under The Habitual Offender Statute

After Petitioner's conviction for misdemeanor shoplifting, criminal impersonation, and second degree forgery, the State moved to have him sentenced as an habitual offender. Following a hearing, the Superior Court concluded that habitual offender status was warranted due to Petitioner's six prior qualifying felony convictions.² See Del. C. Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a); Bailey v. State, 450 A.2d 400, 404 (Del. 1982). Petitioner was sentenced to ten years imprisonment as an habitual offender, even though second degree forgery is a Class G non-violent felony with a maximum prison sentence of two years. 11 Del. C. Arm. §§ 861(b)(2)(b), 4205(b)(7); Crosby v. State, 824 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2003).

1. Whether Petitioner's sentence under the habitual offender statute violated his Constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection

Petitioner contends that the Superior Court violated his due process rights by failing to notify him that he might be subject to habitual offender status and by arbitrarily imposing a ten year sentence.³ Although Petitioner presented this claim to the Delaware Supreme Court on post-conviction appeal, the court did not adjudicate the claim on the merits. See Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707, 718-19 (3d Cir.2004) (a state court opinion which does not even mention a federal constitutional claim does not constitute an adjudication on the merits) (citing Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 333, 98 S.Ct. 597, 54 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978)). Therefore, the pre-AEDPA standard of review applies, and the court will review the claim de novo. See Holloway, 355 F.3d at 718-19.

In Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 450-52, 82 S.Ct. 501, 503-04, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962), the United States Supreme Court held that "due process does not require advance notice that the trial on the substantive offense will be followed by an habitual offender proceeding" if a state chooses to determine a defendant's habitual...