Robinson v. Pierce

• Citation: 150 F.Supp.3d 364
• Decision Date: 17 December 2015
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 12-1348-SLR
• Parties: Kevin Robinson, Petitioner, v. David Pierce, Warden, and Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

150 F.Supp.3d 364

Kevin Robinson, Petitioner,
v.
David Pierce, Warden, and Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents.¹

Civ. No. 12-1348-SLR

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

Signed December 17, 2015
Filed December 18, 2015

150 F.Supp.3d 368

Kevin Robinson. Pro se petitioner.

Karen V. Sullivan. Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBINSON, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the court is petitioner Kenneth Robinson's (“petitioner”) application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

150 F.Supp.3d 369

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (D.I. 3) Petitioner is incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Institution in Smyrna, Delaware. For the reasons that follow, the court will dismiss his application.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As set forth by the Delaware Supreme Court in petitioner's direct appeal, the facts leading to petitioner's arrest and conviction are as follows:

On the afternoon of July 22, 2006, [petitioner] and co-defendant Timothy Austin (“Austin”) drove from Philadelphia to Claymont to meet with the victim Kevin Rafferty (“Rafferty”) in the parking lot of the Brookview Apartments. Austin and Rafferty were acquaintances. They had previously arranged the meeting by telephone. Austin was to buy two ounces of marijuana from Rafferty for $500.

Accompanying Rafferty to the rendezvous was Rafferty's friend, William Witts (“Witts”). Rafferty was a self-employed electrician, and Witts worked for him as an assistant. The two lived together in Leedom Estates.

At trial, Witts testified that Rafferty regularly sold marijuana to supplement his income. On the day of the murder, Rafferty woke Witts up at about noon and told him they were going to a party, but first had to make a stop in Claymont. The two then drove to Claymont and parked in the parking lot of the Brookview Apartments. Rafferty first met with someone named Chuck, who left as Austin arrived in a white Chevrolet Lumina. Austin was in the front passenger's seat. Witts had met Austin once before and knew him as “Ghost.”

Austin walked over to Rafferty's vehicle, a Range Rover, and got in the back seat, counted out some money and then said his “brother” had more money. Austin walked back to the Lumina and returned with [petitioner], who climbed into the back seat of the Land Rover behind Witts. Austin and Rafferty then walked around to the back of the Land Rover to retrieve the marijuana.

After Rafferty and Austin left, [petitioner] pulled out a pistol, held it to Witts' head and told him not to move. [Petitioner] then took Witts' cell phone and necklace as well as Rafferty's cell phone, which was on the console. Rafferty and Austin then returned and got back in the car, Rafferty in the front and Austin behind him in the rear passenger's seat. Austin grabbed Rafferty from behind and began choking him. The two fell out of the car and continued struggling. Witts remained in the vehicle with [petitioner's] gun pointed at his head.

[Petitioner] then got out of the vehicle, and Witts, who had his head down, heard a gunshot. When he looked up, he saw the white Lumina speeding away. Rafferty had been shot. Witts helped him into the passenger's seat, found the car keys, which Austin had taken but then threw away, and drove through the neighborhood until he saw a mailman and asked for help. The mailman called 911.

Austin's version of the incident was somewhat different, downplaying his own role but still casting blame for the actual shooting on [petitioner]. According to Austin's testimony, on July 22, 2006, he drove to Delaware with [petitioner] to buy two ounces of “high quality” marijuana from Rafferty for $500. [Petitioner] was supposed to chip in some of the purchase price.

When they arrived and parked, Austin walked over to Rafferty's Range Rover and got in the rear seat. He then called [petitioner] on his cell phone and told him to come over and add his money to

150 F.Supp.3d 370

the deal. [Petitioner] did so, climbing into the rear seat behind Witts. Rafferty and Austin then went to the rear of the vehicle to retrieve the marijuana and consummate the deal.

Rafferty opened the back hatch of the Range Rover. He and Austin simultaneously saw that [petitioner] was holding a gun to Witts' head. Rafferty reached into the bag containing the marijuana and pulled out his own pistol. Austin grabbed Rafferty and they struggled. Austin pushed Rafferty to the ground and ran back to his car. He saw [petitioner] get out of the Range Rover and shoot Rafferty in the chest. He and [petitioner] then fled back to Philadelphia. [Petitioner] showed Austin the proceeds of the robbery: marijuana, cell phones and necklaces.

New Castle County Police Officer Eric Biehl (“Officer Biehl”) was the first to respond to the mailman's 911 call. He found Witts standing outside the Range Rover and Rafferty seated inside, “bleeding and not looking too well.” As paramedics worked on Rafferty, Officer Biehl questioned him, “to just keep talking to him, keep him conscious, keep him thinking.” Officer Biehl asked, “Who did this to you? Who are the suspects?” Rafferty replied, “Timothy Austin.”

[Petitioner] was apprehended in May 2008, nearly two years after the murder. He agreed to make a statement to police. Although he initially denied any role in the incident, he eventually admitted, not only that he was involved, but that he fired the shot that killed Rafferty. According to [petitioner], he and Austin planned to rob Rafferty from the beginning. [Petitioner's] videotaped statement was played to the jury.

Robinson v. State , 3 A.3d 257, 258–59 (Del.2010).

Petitioner was arrested in June 2008, and was subsequently indicted for first degree murder, three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”), two counts of first degree robbery, and second degree conspiracy. (D. I. 15 at 1) In April 2009, a Delaware Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of all charges except for the second degree conspiracy charge. The Superior Court sentenced petitioner to life in prison for the first degree murder conviction, and to a total of seventeen years in prison for the three PFDCF convictions and the two first degree robbery convictions.² Id. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's convictions and sentences on August 16, 2010. See Robinson , 3 A.3d at 264.

In May 2011, petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61 motion”). (D.I. 15 at 2) The Superior Court denied the motion after determining that the claims were either barred or without merit. See State v. Robinson , 2012 WL 1415645 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2012). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment on post-conviction appeal. See Robinson v. State , 54 A.3d 257 (Del.2012).

Petitioner timely filed a § 2254 application in this court. (D.I. 1) The State filed an answer in opposition (D.I. 15), asserting that the claims should be denied as procedurally barred and/or meritless.

150 F.Supp.3d 371

III. GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A. Exhaustion and Procedural Default

A federal court may consider a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner 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). One prerequisite to federal habeas review is that a petitioner must exhaust all remedies available in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion requirement is grounded on principles of comity to ensure that state courts have the initial opportunity to review federal constitutional challenges to state convictions. Werts v. Vaughn , 228 F.3d 178, 192 (3d Cir.2000). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by “fairly presenting” the substance of the federal habeas claim to the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding, and in a procedural manner permitting the state courts to consider it on the merits. See Duncan v. Henry , 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995) ; Castille v. Peoples , 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 103 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989).

A petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies will be excused if state procedural rules preclude him from seeking further relief in state courts. Lines v. Larkins , 208 F.3d 153, 160 (3d Cir.2000) ; see Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288, 297–98, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). Although treated as technically exhausted, such claims are nonetheless procedurally defaulted. Lines , 208 F.3d at 160 ; Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 750–51, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Similarly, if a petitioner presents a habeas claim to the state's highest court, but that court “clearly and expressly” refuses to review the merits of the claim due to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, the claim is exhausted but procedurally defaulted. See Coleman , 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546 ; Harris v. Reed , 489 U.S. 255, 260–64, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989).

A federal...