Palmer v. Inch
| Decision Date | 05 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:20cv130-MW/MAF |
| Parties | STARQUINESHIA PALMER, Petitioner, v. MARK INCH, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
On January 30, 2020, Petitioner Starquineshia Palmer, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On July 30, 2020, Respondent filed an answer, with exhibits. ECF No. 11. Petitioner has not filed a reply, although she was given the opportunity to do so. See ECF No. 10.
The matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 72.2(B). After careful consideration, the undersigned has determined no evidentiary hearing is required for the disposition of this matter. See Rule 8(a), R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. The pleadings and attachments before the Court show Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief and this § 2254 petition should be denied.
On October 6, 2011, a grand jury in the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, case number 11CF02774, returned an indictment charging Petitioner Starquineshia D. Palmer with first degree murder, by stabbing with a knife, a capital felony, in violation of section 782.04(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, in connection with events that occurred in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, resulting in the death of Shannon Washington. Ex. A at 10-11.1 Palmer and Washington had been in a same-sex relationship for two years. See Ex. I at 761. At the time of the stabbing, Palmer lived in Bradenton and had been visiting Washington at her home in Tallahassee since about the last week in August 2011. See id. at 767, 777-79. Washington was a basketball player at Florida A&M University. See Ex. E at 166-68.
Palmer ultimately proceeded to a jury trial in March 2014, before Judge James C. Hankinson. Exs. D-K (transcript of jury trial); Ex. I at 760. The prosecution presented several witnesses as well as evidence including text messages Palmer sent to her mother around the time of the murder and therecorded (video and audio) police interview with Palmer; the defense also presented witnesses, including Palmer herself. Exs. D-K; Ex. F at 393-438 (recorded interview); Ex. I at 760-875 (Palmer's testimony). Palmer contended her relationship with Washington involved domestic violence and she had acted in self-defense or upon sudden provocation/in the heat of passion when she stabbed Washington. See, e.g., Ex. D at 37-53; Ex. F at 417-23; Ex. I at 802-12. On March 14, 2014, the jury returned a verdict finding Palmer guilty as charged. Ex. A at 108-09; Ex. K at 1135-36. The judge adjudicated her guilty and sentenced her to life in prison. Ex. A at 110-19; Ex. K at 1139.
Palmer appealed her conviction and sentence to the First District Court of Appeal (First DCA), assigned case number 1D14-1711, and raised four points. Ex. P (Initial Brief). The State filed an Answer Brief. Ex. Q. On October 28, 2015, the court affirmed the case without a written opinion. Ex. R; Palmer v. State, 177 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (table). The mandate issued November 13, 2015. Ex. R. Palmer did not seek further review in the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. See ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 11 at 19.
On July 20, 2016, Palmer filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which did not raise any specific grounds for relief and requested the court to hold the proceeding in abeyance for purposes of the federal habeas timeline. Ex. S at 4-8. By order on August 22, 2016, the state post-conviction trial court, Judge Hankinson, dismissed the motion as legally insufficient, allowed her 60 days to file a legally sufficient motion, and denied her request to stay the proceeding. Id. at 9. On September 20, 2016, Palmer filed another postconviction motion with no grounds for relief and a request to stay the proceedings. Id. at 10-16. By order on September 28, 2016, the court found the motion facially insufficient, allowed her until December 22, 2016, to file a legally sufficient motion, and denied her request to stay the proceeding. Id. at 17-18.
On December 19, 2016, Palmer filed an amended postconviction motion, in which she raised fourteen (14) grounds. Id. at 19-65 (exclusive of attachments). By order on January 12, 2017, Judge Hankinson directed the State to respond to Palmer's motion. Id. at 82. In response, the State requested the matter be set for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 83-84. By order on February 7, 2017, Judge Hankinson granted an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 85. Palmer filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel, id. at 86-89, which the court granted by order on March 6, 2017, id. at 94.
An evidentiary hearing occurred August 25, 2017, during which Palmer was represented by counsel, Scott Miller. Ex. S at 106-215 (transcript of hearing). Palmer and both of her trial attorneys, Alice Copek and Andy Thomas, testified at the evidentiary hearing. Id. That same day, the state postconviction trial court rendered an order denying postconviction relief, explaining Palmer "failed to show that she received ineffective assistance of counsel or that she was prejudiced by any alleged deficiency" for "the reasons as announced on the record." Ex. S at 98.
Palmer appealed to the First DCA and her counsel, David Collins, filed an Initial Brief in case number 1D17-3601, raising one point: "Counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Appellant as to the benefits of being tried by a 12-person jury over a 6-person jury and advise her not to waive her right to be tried by a 12-person jury." Ex. T at ii, 10-28. Palmer also filed a pro se brief, Ex. U, and an appendix, Ex. V, by which she appears to challenge the denial of her remaining grounds. The State filed an Answer Brief. Ex. W. Palmer's counsel filed a reply brief. Ex. X. On February 25, 2019, the First DCA per curiam affirmed the case without a written opinion. Ex. Y; Palmer v. State, 264 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (table). The mandate issued March 18, 2019. Ex. Z.
Palmer, through counsel, sought certiorari review in the U.S. Supreme Court. Ex. AA. On October 7, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. Ex. CC.
As indicated above, on January 30, 2020, Palmer filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. In her petition, Palmer raises sixteen (16) grounds, including several grounds alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and two grounds labeled as Ground 7, which are listed below as (7)(a) and (b):
On July 30, 2020, Respondent filed an answer to the petition, with exhibits. ECF No. 11. Palmer has not filed a reply, although she was given the opportunity to do so. See ECF No. 10.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), federal courts may grant habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody. Section 2254(d) provides, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial