Raulerson v. Wainwright

• Decision Date: 24 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-267-Civ-J-WC.,79-267-Civ-J-WC.
• Parties: James David RAULERSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

508 F. Supp. 381

James David RAULERSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 79-267-Civ-J-WC.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

May 9, 1980.

On Petition for Rehearing June 24, 1980.

David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner and James David Raulerson, pro se.

Carolyn Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Ralph N. Greene, III, Asst. State Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Secretary of the Florida Dept. of Corrections, Tallahassee, Fla., Superintendent, Florida State Prison, Starke, Fla., Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., State of Florida, Robert Graham, Governor, State of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent.

ORDER

CASTAGNA, District Judge.

James David Raulerson, an inmate at Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida, petitions this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus that would invalidate the death sentence imposed upon him on August 20, 1975, by the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Florida.

Statement of the Case

On April 27, 1975, in the aftermath of a rape and robbery committed by Petitioner at a Jacksonville restaurant, Officer Michael David Stewart was shot and killed. Petitioner was convicted of the first degree murder of that police officer by a jury in August, 1975. At the penalty phase of his trial on August 7, 1975, a majority of the jury recommended that Petitioner be sentenced to death. The trial judge ordered a presentence investigation report of Petitioner. The judge expressly relied upon that report, at least in part, in sentencing Petitioner to death on August 20, 1975. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court filed written findings of fact in justification for its imposition of the death sentence.

Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida. Raulerson v. State, 358 So.2d 826 (Fla.1978). Among other issues, Petitioner argued that he was denied due process of law pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) because he was not shown or made aware of the contents of the presentence investigation report prior to his sentencing. 358 So.2d at 831-32.

Raulerson filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on March 23, 1979. Both parties agreed that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary. Respondent filed a Motion to Expedite consideration of the Petition on the same day that the Governor of Florida signed a Warrant directing that Petitioner be executed between May 16 and May 23, 1980. Subsequently, on April 24, 1980, Petitioner filed an Application for Stay of Execution pending final disposition of this cause. This Court granted Respondent's Motion to Expedite on April 28, 1980.

Issues for Consideration

Petitioner asserts that he was denied due process of law because the trial court expressly relied in part on information contained in the presentence investigation report in making its sentencing decision when the information contained in that report was not shown or otherwise made known to Petitioner prior to his sentencing, in violation of the principles announced in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977). Petitioner also raises an equal protection of law argument, claiming that the holdings of the Supreme Court of Florida in Raulerson v. State, 358 So.2d 826 (Fla.1978) and Funchess v. State, 367 So.2d 1007 (Fla.1979) reach opposite conclusions on the same Gardner-related due process issue.

Findings of Fact

Upon review of the record, this Court finds that: (1) The trial court relied in part on information contained in the presentence investigation report in its sentencing decision. (2) Although Petitioner's counsel did receive and review the presentence investigation report, the record fails to show that Petitioner either received or reviewed, independently or with counsel, that report prior to his sentencing on August 20, 1975. (3) Petitioner, by affidavit, asserts that only after his sentencing did he learn of certain of the factual allegations contained in the report which he asserts are untrue.

The relevant part of the transcript of the sentencing hearing on August 20, 1975 is reproduced below:

THE COURT: Do you, or anyone on your behalf, have any legal cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced?

MR. STEDEFORD: No legal cause at this time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there anything further in mitigation or aggravation?

MR. STEDEFORD: Your Honor, I talked with Mr. Raulerson about the matter earlier. Anything he might say, we realize, of course, that you have the Presentence Investigation Report that you have provided to me. I have gone over it, I know that you have.

THE COURT: Mr. Stedeford, I requested my secretary to give you two copies of that so Mr. Raulerson may have one also.

MR. STEDEFORD: I have not given him his copy. I received a second copy earlier just a few moments ago, but I will give him one at the conclusion of this hearing.

Your Honor, Mr. Raulerson and I did discuss what mitigation we might bring before the Court. We, frankly, feel as though it would do little good to talk of mitigation in this case, and we feel as though you have considered it, and that Mr. Raulerson and I both concur that anything we might say would not change what you might be doing today.

At this time, Your Honor, there's nothing further to say in mitigation.

THE COURT: Does the State have anything further in aggravation?

MR. GREENE: Nothing, Your Honor, other than the comments that the State, of course, made and brought — and put into evidence at the sentencing phase of the trial.

THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen. (Whereupon, the Court proceeded to sentence the Defendant.) (emphasis supplied)

Respondent asserts that Petitioner's trial counsel represented at the August 20, 1975 hearing that he had discussed the contents of the presentence investigation report with Petitioner prior to the sentencing hearing. If so, such discussion is not disclosed in this record. The record reflects only that Petitioner's trial counsel had discussed with Petitioner the "matter" of mitigation or aggravation and "what mitigation we might bring before the Court" (see transcript above). While this may be close, the unique nature of the death penalty precludes its imposition on less than clear and unequivocal compliance with all procedural requisites. There is no positive allegation in the transcript or any substantial indication in the record as a whole that Petitioner and counsel discussed the contents of the presentence investigation report prior to Petitioner's August 20, 1975 sentencing hearing or that Petitioner was otherwise aware of the contents of that report prior to his sentencing. In an August 22, 1977 affidavit Petitioner stated that he:

"... did not review the presentence investigation report with my attorney, Walter R. Stedeford, prior to my being sentenced."

Petitioner's trial counsel, Mr. Stedeford, stated in a June 2, 1977 letter to Petitioner's appellate counsel:

"I cannot state as a fact that I reviewed the presentence investigative report with Mr. Raulerson and questioned him concerning the accuracy of the allegations."

(4) The trial court's written findings of fact were furnished to Petitioner and his trial attorney immediately prior to the trial court's pronouncement of sentence.

Conclusions of Law

1. Due Process

In Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), the United States Supreme Court confronted a situation in which Petitioner Gardner had been convicted of first degree murder in a Florida court. The judge based his imposition of the death penalty, in part, on information provided in a presentence investigation report. The presentence investigation report contained a confidential section which was not disclosed to Defendant or counsel. Defense counsel had apparently received a copy of the nonconfidential part of the report, but did not request disclosure of the full report. The judge did not comment on the information from the undisclosed part of the report. That undisclosed section was not in the record on appeal to the Florida supreme court, which affirmed Gardner's conviction and sentence. Gardner v. State, 313 So.2d 675, 677 (Fla.1975) (Ervin, Boyd, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the decision of the Florida supreme court. Initially, the Supreme Court distinguished Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), in which the Court had affirmed the conviction and death sentence of an appellant who had been sentenced, at least in part, on the basis of information provided in an undisclosed presentence investigation report. The Gardner Court recognized that the material facts about the appellant in Williams which were in the report "were described in detail by the trial judge in open court." 430 U.S. at 356, 97 S.Ct. at 1203. The Gardner Court also noted that "the passage of time justifies a re-examination of capital-sentencing procedures ... against evolving standards of procedural fairness in a civilized society." Id. at 357, 97 S.Ct. at 1204 (footnote omitted). Thus, the Court stated:

(D)eath is a different kind of punishment from any other which may be imposed in this country.... From the point of view of the defendant, it is different in both its severity and its finality. From the point of view of society, the action of the sovereign in taking the life of one of its citizens also differs dramatically from any other legitimate state action. It is of vital importance to the defendant and to the community that any decision to impose the death sentence be, and appear to be, based on reason rather than caprice or emotion.

* * * * * *

(I)t is now clear that the

...