Rivera v. Wall

• Decision Date: 10 August 2018
• Docket Number: C.A. No. 14-23 WES
• Citation: 333 F.Supp.3d 47
• Parties: Firlando RIVERA v. Ashbel T. WALL
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

333 F.Supp.3d 47

Firlando RIVERA

v.Ashbel T. WALL

C.A. No. 14-23 WES

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

Signed August 10, 2018

Firlando Rivera Cranston, RI, pro se.

George J. West, Providence, RI, for Firlando Rivera.

Aaron L. Weisman, Attorney General's Office, Providence, RI, for Ashbel T. Wall.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge

Petitioner Firlando Rivera has filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF No. 1). The State has filed a motion to dismiss the Petition (ECF No. 19), to which Rivera filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 29). The Court has determined that no hearing is necessary. For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED.

I. Background and Travel

On October 19, 1999, following a six-day trial, Rivera was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and related firearms charges and was found to be a habitual offender. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied on October 27, 1999. Rivera was sentenced on February 3, 2000, to life in prison for the murder conviction, two concurrent ten year sentences and one suspended ten-year sentence for the firearms offenses, and a consecutive term of 20 years, non-parolable, as a habitual offender. Rivera timely appealed the conviction, as well as the denial of his motion for new trial, but in a decision issued on November 19, 2003, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. Rivera did not seek further review.

Thereafter, Rivera filed both a motion for sentence reduction and an application for post-conviction review in the Superior Court. The motion for sentence reduction was denied on July 21, 2004, and the post-conviction petition was denied, after a two-day hearing, on February 11, 2011. Rivera appealed the latter denial, and on January 14, 2013, the Rhode Island Supreme Court again affirmed the lower court's decision.

On January 13, 2014, Rivera, through counsel, filed the instant Petition.¹ The State initially filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) ("First Motion to Dismiss") based on timeliness grounds on February 21, 2014. Rivera filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 10) to the First Motion to Dismiss on August 4, 2014. The State subsequently filed a reply (ECF No. 14), to which Rivera filed a further response (ECF No. 17). In an Order (ECF No. 18) dated September 23, 2015, the Court denied the First Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and directed the State to respond to the Petition on the merits.

The State filed a second motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) ("Second Motion to Dismiss") on October 30, 2015, followed by an appendix of exhibits (ECF No. 20) ("State's Ex."). On October 8, 2016, Rivera filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 29) ("Opposition") to the Second Motion to Dismiss as well as a supplemental memorandum (ECF No. 30).

II. Law

A. Section 2254

Section 2254 provides that "a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

B. Exhaustion and Procedural Default

The exhaustion doctrine, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1),² "is principally designed to protect the state courts' role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption of state judicial proceedings. Under our federal system, the federal and state courts [are] equally bound to guard and protect rights secured by the Constitution." Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982) (alteration in original)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, "it would be unseemly in our dual system of government for a federal district court to upset a state court conviction without an opportunity to the state courts to correct a constitutional violation[.]" Id. Thus, the Rose Court cautioned litigants, "before you bring any claims to federal court, be sure that you first have taken each one to state court." Id. at 520, 102 S.Ct. 1198 ; see also O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 839, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) ("Federal habeas relief is available to state prisoners only after they have exhausted their claims in state court.").

In O'Sullivan, the Supreme Court stated: "To ... ‘protect the integrity’ of the federal exhaustion rule, we ask not only whether a prisoner has exhausted his state remedies, but also whether he has properly exhausted those remedies, i.e., whether he has fairly presented his claims to the state courts[.]" 526 U.S. at 848, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (internal citation omitted); see also id. at 844, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (" Section 2254(c)³ requires only that state prisoners give state courts a fair opportunity to act on their claims."). The question, then, is "[w]hether a prisoner who fails to present his claims in a petition for discretionary review to a state court of last resort has properly presented his claims to the state courts. Because we answer this question ‘no,’ we conclude that Boerckel has procedurally defaulted his claims." Id. at 848, 119 S.Ct. 1728. In other words, "state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." Id. at 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728. The Court noted, however, that:

[N]othing in our decision today requires the exhaustion of any specific remedy when a State has provided that that remedy is unavailable. Section 2254(c), in fact, directs federal courts to consider whether a habeas petitioner has "the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented" (emphasis added). The exhaustion doctrine, in other words, turns on an inquiry into what procedures are "available" under state law. In sum, there is nothing in the exhaustion doctrine requiring federal courts to ignore a state law or rule providing that a given procedure is not available.

Id. at 847-48, 119 S.Ct. 1728.

The Supreme Court has further stated that it "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). The rule applies "whether the state law ground is substantive or procedural." Id. In such cases, "federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Id. at 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546.

"Cause" generally consists of "some objective factor external to the defense." Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) ; see also Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753, 111 S.Ct. 2546. For example, "a showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel, or that some interference by officials made compliance impracticable ...." Carrier, 477 U.S. at 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In order to demonstrate "prejudice," a petitioner "must show not merely that the errors at ... trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions." Id. at 494, 106 S.Ct. 2639 (alteration in original)(internal quotation marks omitted). Lastly, the "fundamental miscarriage of justice" exception applies "in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent ...." Id. at 495-96, 106 S.Ct. 2639. "To establish the requisite probability, "a petitioner must show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995) ; see also Lee v. Corsini, 777 F.3d 46, 62 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324, 115 S.Ct. 851 )(noting that showing of actual innocence must be supported by "new reliable evidence — whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence — that was not presented at trial").

C. Strickland

"The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel." Lema v. United States, 987 F.2d 48, 51 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ). However, "[t]he Constitution does not guarantee a defendant a letter-perfect defense or a successful defense; rather, the performance standard is that of reasonably effective assistance under the circumstances then obtaining." Id. (quoting United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302, 309-10 (1st Cir. 1991) ).

A defendant who claims that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel must demonstrate:

(1) that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and

(2) a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In assessing the adequacy of counsel's performance, a defendant " ‘must identify the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment,’ and the court then determines whether, in the particular context, the identified conduct or inaction was ‘outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.’ " United States v. Manon, 608 F.3d 126, 131 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct....