McGee v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:13-cv-1125-J-39MCR

• Decision Date: 30 September 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:13-cv-1125-J-39MCR
• Parties: JAMES LEE MCGEE, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DOC, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

JAMES LEE MCGEE, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DOC, et al., Respondents.

Case No. 3:13-cv-1125-J-39MCR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

September 30, 2015

ORDER

I. STATUS

Petitioner James Lee McGee challenges a 2011 (Nassau County) conviction for sexual battery. He is proceeding on a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Petition) (Doc. 1). He submitted an Initial Brief and Exhibits (Doc. 4) in support of his Petition. He raises four grounds in the Petition: (1) a Sixth Amendment claim asserting the denial of a fair trial; (2) a claim of mental health problems; (3) a claim of a biased judge; and finally, (4) a claim of excessive bail in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These four grounds will be addressed by the Court. Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992). Upon review, the Court finds that no evidentiary proceedings are required in this Court.

Respondents filed a Response to Petition for Habeas Corpus (Response) (Doc. 14), requesting the Petition be denied.Respondents submitted Exhibits (Doc. 14).¹ Petitioner filed a Reply to State's Response (Doc. 19). See Order (Doc. 8). Respondents do not contend that the Petition is untimely filed. Response at 4.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The appropriate analysis when undertaking habeas review pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) is set forth in a recent Eleventh Circuit opinion:

review of the state habeas court's decision is constrained by § 2254(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which "imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state court rulings and demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt." Bishop v. Warden, GDCP, 726 F.3d 1243, 1253 (11th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 67 (2014) (internal quotation omitted). Pursuant to the AEDPA, this Court is prohibited from granting relief if a state court has adjudicated a claim on the merits 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 of the United States," 28 U .S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings," id. § 2254(d)(2). This Court will analyze Petitioner's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

French v. Warden, Wilcox State Prison, No. 12-15385, 2015 WL 3857639, at * 3 (11th Cir. June 23, 2015). See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011) (setting forth the same three exceptions to the bar to relitigation of any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court).

Also of import are the parameters for deferential review under AEDPA:

A state-court decision represents an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal rule from Supreme Court cases but unreasonably applies the established law to the facts of the case. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1174, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that "an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law." Cullen v. Pinholster, --- U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1411, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) (quotation marks omitted).

A state court's determination of the facts is unreasonable only if no fairminded jurist could agree with the determination. Lee v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr., 726 F.3d 1172, 1192 (11th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1542, 188 L.Ed.2d 557 (2014). Findings of fact by a state court are presumed to be correct, and a habeas petitioner must rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Pope v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 680 F.3d 1271, 1284 (11th Cir. 2012). In determining how the state courts resolved a habeas petitioner's claims, we look to the last state court that rendered a judgment in the case. Pope, 680 F.3d at 1284-85.

Stoddard v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 600 F. App'x 696, 703 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam), petition for cert. docketed, (U.S. June 12, 2015) (No. 14-10198).

This Court will give a presumption of correctness of the state courts' factual findings unless rebutted with clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), and, the Court will apply this presumption to the factual determinations of both trial and appellate courts. See Bui v. Haley, 321 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003).

III. EXHAUSTION AND PROCEDURAL DEFAULT

In addressing the question of exhaustion, the Court must ask whether Petitioner's claim was raised in the state court proceedings and whether the state court was alerted to the federal nature of the claim:

Before seeking § 2254 habeas relief in federal court, a petitioner must exhaust all state court remedies available for challenging his conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). For a federal claim to be exhausted, the petitioner must have "fairly presented [it] to the state courts." McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court has suggested that a litigant could do so by including in his claim before the state appellate court "the federal source of law on which he relies or a case deciding such a claim on federal grounds, or by simply labeling the claim 'federal.'" Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 32, 124 S.Ct. 1347, 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004). The Court's guidance in Baldwin "must be applied with common sense and in light of the purpose underlying the exhaustion requirement"—namely, giving the state courts "a meaningful opportunity" toaddress the federal claim. McNair, 416 F.3d at 1302. Thus, a petitioner could not satisfy the exhaustion requirement merely by presenting the state court with "all the facts necessary to support the claim," or by making a "somewhat similar state-law claim." Kelley, 377 F.3d at 1343-44. Rather, he must make his claims in a manner that provides the state courts with "the opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon (his) [federal] constitutional claim." Id. at 1344 (quotation omitted).

Lucas v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 682 F.3d 1342, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 875 (2013).

There are prerequisites to a federal habeas review. As such, the Court must also be mindful of the doctrine of procedural default:

Federal habeas courts reviewing the constitutionality of a state prisoner's conviction and sentence are guided by rules designed to ensure that state-court judgments are accorded the finality and respect necessary to preserve the integrity of legal proceedings within our system of federalism. These rules include the doctrine of procedural default, under which a federal court will not review the merits of claims, including constitutional claims, that a state court declined to hear because the prisoner failed to abide by a state procedural rule. See, e.g., Coleman, supra, at 747-748, 111 S.Ct. 2546; Sykes, supra, at 84-85, 97 S.Ct. 2497. A state court's invocation of a procedural rule to deny a prisoner's claims precludes federal review of the claims if, among other requisites, the state procedural rule is a nonfederal ground adequate to support the judgment and the rule is firmly established and consistently followed. See, e.g., Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1127-1128, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011); Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. ----, ----, 130 S.Ct.612, 617-618, 175 L.Ed.2d 417 (2009). The doctrine barring procedurally defaulted claims from being heard is not without exceptions. A prisoner may obtain federal review of a defaulted claim by showing cause for the default and prejudice from a violation of federal law. SeeColeman, 501 U.S., at 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546.

Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 1316 (2012).

Of note, procedural defaults may be excused under certain circumstances; "[a] petitioner who fails to exhaust his claim is procedurally barred from pursuing that claim on habeas review in federal court unless he shows either cause for and actual prejudice from the default or a fundamental miscarriage of justice from applying the default." Lucas, 682 F.3d at 1353 (citing Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299, 1306 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)). The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception is only available in extraordinary cases upon a showing of "'actual' innocence" rather than mere "'legal' innocence." Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1171 (11th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 926 (2002).

IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

To provide historical context to Petitioner's grounds for relief, the Court presents this brief summary of the case. On April 29, 2011 Petitioner was charged by information with sexual battery and lewd or lascivious battery. Ex. A at 1-2. Petitioner waived speedy trial. Id. at 3. On October 27, 2011, Petitioner signed a Plea of Guilty and Negotiated Sentence. Id. at 4-9. Thestate agreed to nolle pros count two, and Petitioner agreed to plead guilty by convenience to the sexual battery count and receive a negotiated sentence of seven years, followed by three years of probation. Id. at 4.

On October 27, 2011, the trial court conducted a plea colloquy and accepted Petitioner's plea. Ex. D at 24-35. The court adjudicated Petitioner guilty and sentenced him to seven years in prison followed by three years of sex offender probation. Id. at 34. On October 27, 2011, the court entered judgment and sentence. Ex. A at 11-19. No direct appeal was taken. Response at 1.

On February 15, 2012, Petitioner filed a letter dated February 12, 2012 with the Supreme Court of Florida. Ex. B at 1-5; Ex. D at 1-3. On March 9, 2012, the court transferred the document to the circuit court to be considered as a motion for post conviction relief raised pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla. R....