Parker v. Cartledge
Decision Date | 10 June 2015 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:14-4331-RMG-BM |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | TRAVIS PARKER, #240822, Petitioner, v. L. CARTLEDGE, WARDEN, Respondent. |
Petitioner, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was filed pro se on November 3, 2014.1
The Respondent filed a return and motion for summary judgment on January 26, 2015. As the Petitioner is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro order was filed on January 27, 2015, advising the Petitioner that he had thirty-four (34) days to file any material in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motion for summary judgment may be granted, thereby ending his case. After receiving extensions of time, Petitioner filed a response in opposition on May 14, 2015.
This matter is now before the Court for disposition.2
Petitioner was indicted in Cherokee County in October 2007 for murder [Indictment No. 07-GS-11-1212]. (R.pp. 566-567). Petitioner was represented by Assistant Public Defender Thomas Shealy, and after a trial by jury on August 11-13, 2008, was convicted on the murder charge. (R.pp. 1-485). The trial judge sentenced Petitioner to life without parole. (R.p. 493).
Petitioner filed a timely direct appeal. Petitioner was represented on appeal by Joseph L. Savitz, III, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, who filed an Anders3 brief seeking to be relieved as counsel and raising the following issue:
The trial judge committed reversible error when he neglected to instruct the jury on the defense of alibi.
See Petition, p. 3 (Court Docket No. 19-5, p. 4).
Petitioner did not file a pro se brief. The South Carolina Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's direct appeal and granted his counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel on February 23, 2010. See Parker v. State, Appellate Case No. 2010-UP-144 (Order filed February 23, 2010); Court Docket No. 19-7. The Remittitur was sent down on March 12, 2010. See Court Docket No. 19-8.
On November 2, 2010, Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief ("APCR") in state circuit court; Parker v. State of South Carolina, No. 2010-CP-11-860; raising the following issues:
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
a. Counsel failed to present any witnesses on my behalf.
b. Counsel failed to prepare case for trial; and
c. Counsel failed to raise crucial objections during the trial.
(R.p. 497).
Petitioner was represented in his APCR by Ernest Hamilton, Esquire, and an evidentiary hearing was held on Petitioner's application on September 4, 2012. (R.pp. 506-557). In an order filed December 17, 2012 (dated December 7, 2012), the PCR judge denied relief on the APCR in its entirety. (R.pp. 558-565).
Petitioner then filed a timely appeal of the PCR court's order. Petitioner was represented on appeal by David Alexander, Esquire, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, who raised the following issue:
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in derogation of Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him by failing to properly object to and preserve for appeal the inadmissibility of testimonial hearsay statements by the decedent ["Maraine Foote"] allegedly identifying Petitioner as his murderer where these statements were tainted by police suggestion?
See Petition, p. 2 (Court Docket No. 19-10, p. 3).
On September 24, 2014, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied Petitioner's writ of certiorari. See Court Docket No. 19-12. The Remittitur was sent down on October 10, 2014. See Court Docket No. 19-13.
In his Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this United States District Court, Petitioner raises the following issues:
See Petition, pp. 5-10 & Attachment.
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P; see Habeas Corpus Rules 5-7, 11. Further, while the federal court is charged with liberally construing pleadings filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case; See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), and Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a federal claim, nor can the court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. Weller v. Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to object to the admission of Foote's statements (Ground One), for failing to object to the police officer giving Petitioner's name to Foote from a prior incident (Ground Three), and for failing to object to hearsay statements (Ground Four). Petitioner also contends that his direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to argue Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser (Ground Two), and that his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to raise Petitioner's right to confrontation (Ground Six).
a.
(Ground One and Part One of Ground Four4)
Petitioner raised Ground One and the first part of Ground Four (dealing with whether his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve whether Foote's statements were tainted by the police) in his APCR, where Petitioner had the burden of proving the allegations in his petition. Counsel also raised these same claims in the PCR appeal to the State Supreme Court. Butler v. State, 334 S.E.2d 813, 814 (S.C. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1094 (1986); see also Court Docket No. 19-10, p. 5. Therefore, these claims are properly exhausted for purposes of federal habeas review.
The PCR court rejected these claims, making relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with S.C.Code Ann. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial