Rodriguez v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 05 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 13-1971-SLR |
| Parties | Michael Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. David Pierce, Warden, and Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Michael Rodriguez, Pro se petitioner.
Karen V. Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for respondents.
ROBINSON
Presently before the court is petitioner Michael Rodriguez's (“petitioner”) amended application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
. (D.l. 3; D.l. 9) Petitioner is incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Institution in Smyrna, Delaware. For the reasons that follow, the court will dismiss his application.
in the upper chest. That man was [petitioner]. Petitioner told the hospital personnel that he had been shot in Wilmington. [Petitioner's] girlfriend testified at his trial that she had received a call from [petitioner] around 10:20 p.m., asking her to pick him up in Harrington. When she arrived in Harrington, she saw that [petitioner] had been shot and was bleeding. She was going to take him to Kent General Hospital in Dover, but he told her to instead go to Wilmington. She took him to Christiana Hospital and dropped him off without talking to anyone. [Petitioner] underwent surgery and had the bullet removed. The hospital personnel turned the bullet over to the Wilmington Police upon their request for it. The Wilmington Police turned the bullet over to the Delaware State Police. Before trial, the police recovered a bullet that Johnson had shot into his home and one he had shot into a nearby trailer during the home invasion. At trial, the State's firearm expert testified that the bullet recovered from [petitioner's] body matched the two bullets recovered from Johnson's home and nearby trailer.
(D.l. 15, Appellant's Op. Br. in Rodriguez v. State, No5,013, at State v. Rodriguez, ID No. 903019123A, Letter Op. at 1–2, Bradley, J. (Del.Super.Sept. 10, 2012)).
Petitioner was arrested in March 2009, and was subsequently indicted for attempted first degree murder, first degree burglary, second degree assault, two counts of first degree reckless endangering, four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited (“PDWBPP”). (D.l. 13 at 3) The PDWBPP charge was severed prior to trial. (D.l. 13 at 3) While the case was being tried before a Superior Court jury, the State entered a nolle prosequi on the second degree assault and related weapon charges. The jury convicted petitioner of second degree assault as a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder, and returned a guilty verdict on all of the remaining charges. The Superior Court sentenced petitioner to a total of fifty-four years of incarceration at Level V, followed by probation. Id. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's convictions and sentences on September 13, 2010. See Rodriguez v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 (Table), 2010 WL 3549863 (Del. Sept. 13, 2010)
.
In September 2011, petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61
(“Rule 61 motion”). (D.l. 13 at 3) The Superior Court denied the motion after determining that the sole ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised therein was meritless. (D.l. 15, Appellant's Op. Br. in Rodriguez v. State, No. 25,2013, at State v. Rodriguez, ID No. 903019123A, Letter Op. at 10, Bradley, J. (Del.Super.Sept. 10, 2012)). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that judgment on post-conviction appeal. See
Rodriguez v. State, 77 A.3d 272 (Table), 2013 WL 5494720 (Del. Oct. 18, 2013).
Petitioner timely filed a pro se § 2254
application in this court asserting two ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (D.l.3) Soon after that filing, another habeas application challenging the same conviction was filed by an attorney representing petitioner, and a separate case was opened. See
Rodriguez v. Pierce, Civ. A. No. 14–19–SLR. The application in Rodriguez, Civ. A. No. 14–19–SLR only asserted one ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which was identical to the first claim in petitioner's pro se application in this case. The court issued an order requesting clarification as to whether petitioner wished to proceed forward with his pro se application in the instant proceeding or with his counseled application in Rodriguez, Civ. A. No. 14–19–SLR. (D.l. 6) Petitioner responded that he wished to proceed forward with the instant proceeding, but that he wanted the court to treat the counseled application in Rodriguez, Civ. A. No. 14–19–SLR, as his first amendment to the application in this case. (D.l.8) As such, Civ. A. No. 14–19–SLR was administratively closed, and the counseled application filed in that case was docketed as a first amendment to the application in the instant proceeding. (D.l.9) Thereafter, the court ordered the State to answer the application. (D.l.10) The State filed an answer in opposition (D.l.13), asserting that the sole ineffective assistance of counsel claim1 should be denied as meritless.
If a state's highest court adjudicated a federal habeas claim on the merits, the federal court must review the claim under the deferential standard contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal habeas relief may only be granted if the state court's 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 the state court's decision was an unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence adduced in the trial. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2) ; see also
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ; Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2001).
A claim has been “adjudicated on the merits” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
if the state court decision finally resolves the claim on the basis of its substance, rather than on a procedural or some other ground. Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105, 115 (3d Cir.2009). The deferential standard of § 2254(d) applies even “when a state court's order is unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the reasons relief has been denied”; as explained by the Supreme Court, “it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98–100, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
Finally, when reviewing a habeas claim, a federal court must presume that the state court's determinations of factual issues are correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)
. This presumption of correctness applies to both explicit and implicit findings of fact, and is only rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) ; Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280, 286 (3d Cir.2000) ; Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 341, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) ().
In his sole ground for relief, petitioner contends that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress the bullet that was surgically removed from his body on the basis that the police seized the bullet from hospital personnel in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, petitioner contends that defense counsel should have filed a motion to suppress the bullet because petitioner did not consent to have the bullet turned over to the police and because the hospital's established procedures for collecting and preserving “forensic evidence” for use by the police made the hospital personnel “agents of the State.” (D.l. 9 at 13) The Delaware Supreme Court denied this ineffective assistance of counsel claim on post-conviction appeal after determining that the argument lacked merit. Therefore, habeas relief will only be available if the Delaware Supreme Court's decision was either contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
The clearly established Supreme Court precedent governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims is the two-pronged standard enunciated by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
and its progeny. See
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Under the first Strickland prong, a petitioner must demonstrate that “counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” with reasonableness being judged under professional norms prevailing at the time counsel rendered assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Under the second Strickland prong, a petitioner must...
To continue reading
Request your trial