Price v. Allen

• Decision Date: 10 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 09–11716.,09–11716.
• Parties: Christopher Lee PRICE, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Richard F. ALLEN, Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

679 F.3d 1315

23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1029

Christopher Lee PRICE, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.Richard F. ALLEN, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 09–11716.

United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.

May 10, 2012.

Tony George Miller, John A. Earnhardt, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham,AL, Aaron Michael Katz, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA, Douglas Hallward Driemeler, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner–Appellant.

Henry Mitchell Johnson, Alabama Atty. General's Office, Montgomery, AL, for Respondent–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We previously issued an opinion in this case, Price v. Allen, No. 09–11716, slip op. (11th Cir. March 30, 2012). On Price's motion for panel rehearing, we hereby vacate our earlier opinion and substitute this one in its place to more fully address Price's claim regarding the prosecutor's statements on future dangerousness during the penalty phase of his trial.

Christopher Lee Price appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Price was convicted on February 5, 1993 for the capital felony murder of William Lynn, a minister in the small town of Fayette County, Alabama, that occurred during the course of a robbery at Lynn's home. A detailed description of the facts of this crime can be found in the Alabama state court's decision in Price's direct criminal appeal. See Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1011–12 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). Price was tried and found guilty for capital murder and robbery and the jury voted ten to two to recommend a death sentence for the murder, which the state trial court followed, sentencing Price to death. On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama¹ and Alabama Supreme Court² affirmed Price's conviction and sentence, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review.³

Price commenced his state habeas court proceedings by filing a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Upon the state's motion and after having the opportunity to amend his petition, the state habeas court dismissed Price's petition in part and denied it in part, which the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review.

Concurrent with his request for discretionary review in the Alabama Supreme Court, Price filed in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was stayed until the conclusion of his state habeas proceedings. Upon review by the district court, Price's federal habeas petition was denied in part and dismissed in part. We granted Price's request for a Certificate of Appealability on the following issues:

• whether the state trial court erred in denying Price's motion for a change of venue;

• whether Price's counsel was ineffective in litigating a change of venue motion;

• whether the prosecution's comments during the penalty phase about Price's future dangerousness constituted reversible error;

• whether Price's counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of his trial; and • whether the district court erred in denying Price's request for an evidentiary hearing.

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review the district court's conclusions on legal questions and mixed questions of law and fact de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Rhode v. Hall, 582 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir.2009), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 3399, 177 L.Ed.2d 313 (2010). However, our review of a state court's decision⁴ is limited by the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Anti–Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1218 (1996).See28 U.S.C. § 2254; Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402–03, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

Under AEDPA, we accord a presumption of correctness to a state court's factual findings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) (“A determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”). We therefore grant habeas relief to a petitioner challenging a state court's factual findings only in those cases where the state court's decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Id. § 2254(d)(2); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 528–29, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003).

AEDPA similarly constrains our review of legal questions decided on the merits in state court. Under the statute, we cannot grant habeas relief “with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings” unless:

[T]he adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) 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.

§ 2254(d). The Supreme Court has further explained the requirements of § 2254(d) as follows:

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.

Williams, 529 U.S. at 412–13, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

III. CONVICTION

Price argues that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to an impartial jury were violated when the state trial court denied his request for a change of venue, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in litigating his request seeking a change of venue. He argues that the circumstances of the crime, the nature of the local community, and the surrounding pre-trial publicity were sufficient to trigger a presumption of jury prejudice necessitating a change of venue. He also seeks an evidentiary hearing in federal court on these claims.

As to the denial of Price's motion for a change of venue, we review the state appellate court's decision on direct appeal which affirmed the trial court's denial of this motion. We must determine whether that decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “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,” § 2254(d).

The Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to have his case decided by an impartial jury, Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961), and a defendant may request a “transfer of the proceeding to a different district ... if extraordinary local prejudice will prevent a fair trial—a basic requirement of due process,” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2913, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Supreme Court has stated that an impartial jury, however, is not one in which the jurors must be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved in the case. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639. “To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” Id. at 723, 81 S.Ct. 1639.

In deciding whether a defendant should have been granted a change of venue based on a presumption of juror prejudice—as Price here argues he was entitled to—, a court must consider the “totality of circumstances that [a defendant's] trial was not fundamentally fair.” Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). Most recently in Skilling, the Supreme Court explained that in each of its cases where it had overturned a conviction due to a presumption of prejudice, those “conviction[s] [had been] obtained in a trial atmosphere that [was] utterly corrupted by press coverage.” 130 S.Ct. at 2914. The Court reiterated that its decisions, however, “cannot be made to stand for the proposition that juror exposure to ... news accounts of the crime ... alone presumptively deprives the defendant of due process.” Id. (quoting Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798–99, 95 S.Ct. 2031).

The Court in Skilling noted several factors that have been pertinent to its determination of whether a presumption of juror prejudice has existed in its prior decisions. First, it pointed out that its decisions have emphasized “the size and characteristics of the community in which the crime occurred” and their impact on the ability to convene an impartial venire. Id. at 2915. The Court has considered whether the associated media coverage has included a “confession or other blatantly prejudicial information of the type readers or viewers could not reasonably be expected to shut from sight.” Id. at 2916 (citing Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963), in which a local television station broadcast, on three separate occasions just before trial, the filmed interrogation and confession of the defendant). The Court also has taken into account the length of time that has elapsed from the crime until the trial...