Milton v. Inch
| Decision Date | 20 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:18cv581-RH-MJF |
| Parties | DAVID B. MILTON, a/k/a DAVE B. MILTON, Petitioner, v. MARK S. INCH, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Petitioner David Milton has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1), with supporting memorandum (Doc. 2). Respondent ("the State") answered, providing relevant portions of the state court record. (Doc. 12). Milton replied. (Doc. 18). The undersigned concludes that no evidentiary hearing is required for the disposition of this matter, and that Milton is not entitled to habeas relief.1
In August 2010, Lamont Harrison (Milton's co-defendant) stored a bag of cash (roughly $18,000) in Kristee Howard's apartment. On August 4, 2010, one of Howard's sisters, Maria Howard, discovered the bag in Kristee's bedroom closet. Maria took the cash out of the bag and posed with it while Kristee took photographs and made a video recording.
The next morning, Kristee visited another sister, Shayla Willis, at Willis's home. Kristee showed Willis and Mario Cloud (Willis's boyfriend) the video of Maria posing with Harrison's money. Kristee then left Willis's home with her mother (Maria Bridges) to run errands. Another sister, Rashaun Howard, joined them later.
At approximately 1:30 p.m., Harrison called Kristee and told her he needed to retrieve his bag from her apartment. Kristee met Harrison and gave him her apartment key. At 2:09 p.m., Harrison called Kristee again, this time very upset, complaining that the money was not in Kristee's apartment. Harrison surmised that someone had used a key to enter the apartment, because there was no sign of forcedentry and the door was locked when Harrison arrived. Harrison told Kristee to meet him, and she agreed.
When Kristee and Harrison met, Harrison questioned Kristee about others who might have a key to her apartment. Kristee recalled giving a spare key to her sister Maria. Kristee called Maria and learned that Maria gave her key to Shayla Willis. Kristee drove to Willis's home, while Harrison followed in his pickup truck. Harrison parked across the street from Willis's home.
Kristee knocked on Willis's front door, and Willis came outside. Kristee asked Willis if she had the spare key to her apartment. Willis acknowledged having the key, but could not recall where it was located. Kristee informed Willis that Harrison's money was missing from her apartment. The two had a heated exchange, and Cloud came outside. Cloud and Kristee argued in the yard, and then Cloud and Willis went back inside the house, leaving Kristee outside.
Harrison observed the argument from his truck. Milton arrived shortly after Willis and Cloud went back inside Willis's home. Milton was driving a black sedan, and exited the car holding two firearms and wearing a bulletproof vest. Milton gave one gun to Harrison. Harrison took the firearm and walked up to Willis's front door, screwing a silencer onto the gun as he approached. Milton, armed with the remaining gun, stood guard near the house.
Harrison kicked in Willis's front door and demanded of Cloud, "Play Boy [sic], where my money at?" Harrison then fired a shot that missed Cloud. Willis immediately retreated into a bedroom with her son. Willis heard Cloud and Harrison scuffle, and another gunshot. Willis stepped out of the bedroom just as Harrison was getting up from the floor. Harrison ran out of the house as Willis followed him. Willis stopped at the porch and saw Harrison and Milton flee to their respective vehicles. Cloud died of a single gunshot wound to the thigh. The projectile severed Cloud's iliac artery and vein.
Law enforcement recovered two .40 caliber shell casings. A single .40 caliber projectile was recovered from a washing machine inside Willis's home. Also inside the washing machine was $4,550 in the same denominations and packaging as Harrison's money. The second projectile was recovered from Cloud's body. At some point after the shooting, Harrison called Kristee Howard again and asked her about his money.
Kristee Howard identified Milton in a photo lineup and in court as the man who drove up, handed Harrison the gun, and stood guard with a gun during the burglary and murder. Shayla Willis identified Milton in court as the man she saw flee from her porch, alongside Harrison, after the shooting.
In Leon County Circuit Court Case No. 2010-CF-3287, a grand jury indicted Milton for First Degree Murder with a Firearm (Count I) and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Count II). .3 Co-Defendant Harrison also was indicted for those charges and for the additional charge of Armed Burglary of a Dwelling. (Ex. B (joint trial transcript)). Milton was tried with Harrison and found guilty of murder as charged.4 (Ex. B; Ex. C (judgment and sentence)). The trial court adjudicated Milton guilty and sentenced him as a prison releasee reoffender to life in prison for the murder and a concurrent term of 3 years in prison for the firearm possession offense. (Ex. C). The Florida First District Court of Appeal ("First DCA") affirmed on October 9, 2014, per curiam and without written opinion. Milton v. State, 163 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (Table) (copy at Ex. F).
On June 2, 2015, Milton file a pro se petition in the First DCA alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (Ex. G). The First DCA summarily denied relief on the merits. (Id.).
On September 30, 2015, Milton filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which he later supplemented. (Ex. H at 3-18, 19-44). The state circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing in which Milton was assisted by counsel. (Id. at 68-183 (evidentiary hearing transcript)). On July 21, 2017, the circuit court entered a written order denying relief on all claims. (Id. at 59-65). The First DCA affirmed per curiam without written opinion. Milton v. State, 257 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (Table) (copy at Ex. L). The mandate issued December 17, 2018. (Id.).
Milton filed his pro se federal habeas petition on December 13, 2018, raising nine claims. (Doc. 1). The State asserts that Milton is not entitled to habeas relief because each claim fails for one or more of the following reasons: (1) the claim is not cognizable on federal habeas; (2) the claim is procedurally defaulted; and (3) the claim is without merit. (Doc. 12).
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 UnitedStates 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 prisoner's case.
Id., 529 U.S. at 412-13 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
Under the Williams framework, the federal court must first determine the "clearly established Federal law," namely, "the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court render[ed] its decision." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 (2003). After identifying the governing legal principle, the federal court determines whether the state court's adjudication is contrary to the clearly established Supreme Court case law. The adjudication is "contrary" only if either the reasoning or the result contradicts therelevant Supreme Court cases. See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002) ().
If the "contrary to" clause is not satisfied, the federal court determines whether the state court "unreasonably applied" the governing legal principle set forth in the Supreme Court's cases. The federal court defers to the state court's reasoning unless the state court's application of the legal principle was "objectively unreasonable" in light of the record before the state court. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 409; Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 652 (2004). "[E]ven a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011).
Section 2254(d) also allows habeas relief for a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court where that adjudication "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)(2). The "unreasonable determination of the facts" standard is implicated only to the extent the validity of the state court's ultimate conclusion is premised on unreasonable fact finding. See Gill v. Mecusker, 633 F.3d 1272, 1292 (11th Cir. 2011). As with the "unreasonable application"clause, the federal court applies an objective test. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial