Robinson v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 20 March 2017
• Docket Number: CAUSE NO. 1:15CV83-LG-RHW
• Parties: SCOOTER L. ROBINSON PETITIONER v. FRANK SHAW, ET AL. RESPONDENTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

SCOOTER L. ROBINSON PETITIONER v. FRANK SHAW, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

CAUSE NO. 1:15CV83-LG-RHW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 20, 2017

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation [26] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered on January 27, 2017. Magistrate Judge Walker reviewed Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Respondent's answer, and the state court record. He determined that the grounds asserted in the Application did not entitle Petitioner to relief, and therefore recommended that the application be denied and the petition dismissed. The petitioner filed an objection to the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation, which the Court overrules. The Magistrate Judge's recommendation will be adopted by the Court, and this cause dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Robinson was convicted of failure to stop for a law enforcement officer and aggravated assault on a peace officer as a habitual offender. It appears from the record that Robinson had been arrested on a drug charge in Pearl River County and was in a hospital, in police custody, when he escaped. The Mississippi Court of Appeals summarized the events that followed:

Local law enforcement agencies were notified of Robinson's escape and worked together to determine his whereabouts. The Mississippi Highway Patrol (MHP) encountered Robinson on the highway and a high-speed pursuit followed. Robinson eventually pulled over, but when Trooper Paul Fernandez asked Robinson (the driver) to step out of the car, he sped off. Trooper Fernandez notified local law enforcement of Robinson's location, and they set up a roadblock. Approaching the roadblock, and still in high-speed pursuit, MHP rammed Robinson's car in an attempt to stop the vehicle.

When Robinson attempted to go around the roadblock, law enforcement shot at the car's tires in order to disable the vehicle. A deputy with the Pearl River County Sheriff's Department, Donnie Saucier, approached the vehicle. Initially, he went to the passenger side and shot into the right front tire. Deputy Saucier then went to the driver's side, calling Robinson by name and warning him to stop. Robinson, however, was still trying to maneuver the car to escape. Deputy Saucier reached into the car and grabbed Robinson by his shirt, attempting to apprehend him. Robinson pulled the deputy partially into the vehicle, hit the accelerator, and began dragging the officer. Fearful for his life, Deputy Saucier fired a shot into Robinson's left thigh, and Robinson released him. Deputy Saucier fell to the pavement, sustaining "minor scrapes and bruises." Law enforcement continued to pursue Robinson, whose car now had four flat tires. Trooper Fernandez hit the vehicle again, and Robinson finally stopped and surrendered to authorities.

Robinson v. State, 169 So. 3d 916, 919 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

After Robinson's conviction, the trial court sentenced him to two concurrent life sentences. He appealed his conviction, and it was confirmed by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Robinson then filed this federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge Walker noted that, with the exception of the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, all of the grounds presented in this habeas petition had been presented to the Mississippi Court of Appeals. He applied the deferential standard of review set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to each of the previously presentedgrounds for relief and conducted a de novo review of the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.

DISCUSSION

The Court must review any objected-to portions of a report and recommendation de novo. See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 646 (5th Cir. 1994); Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991). Such a review means that the Court will consider the record which has been developed before the Magistrate Judge and make its own determination on the basis of that record. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675 (1980). The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Merely reurging the allegations in the petition or attacking the underlying conviction is insufficient to receive de novo review. Pacheco v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 5:14-CV-88-DCB-MTP, 2015 WL 5156771, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2015). See also Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993) (no factual objection is raised when a petitioner merely re-urges arguments contained in the original petition). When a de novo review is not warranted, the Court need only review the findings and recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th...