Roland v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

Decision Date19 August 2021
Docket Number3:18-cv-790-TJC-JBT
PartiesJAQUEZ SHAKIM ROLAND, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
ORDER

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, United States District Judge.

I. Status

Petitioner Jaquez Roland, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this case by filing a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). He challenges a state court (Flagler County, Florida) conviction and sentence for armed robbery, grand theft, false imprisonment, and battery. Respondents oppose the Petition. (Doc. 9, Response; Doc. 10, App'x). Respondents filed a supplemental appendix (Doc. 21, App'x), and Petitioner filed a reply brief (Doc. 22, Reply). The case is ripe for review.

II. Background

The State of Florida charged Petitioner by an amended information with four counts: (1) robbery with a weapon, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 812.13(2)(b); (2) grand theft, in violation of Florida Statutes Sections 812.014(1) and (2)(c); (3) false imprisonment, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 787.02(2); and (4) battery, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 784.03(1)(a). (App'x A at 31).[1] The charges stemmed from the October 30, 2011, robbery of Sharp's Discount Liquors in Flagler County, Florida. (Id.).

Before trial, Petitioner, who was represented by Regina Nunnally of the public defender's office, moved in limine to exclude testimony about the contents of a surveillance video taken from a nearby Burger King restaurant. (Id. at 33- 34). Four of the State's witnesses were prepared to describe what they saw on the video, which purportedly depicted Petitioner inside the Burger King shortly after the robbery. The video itself was unavailable because Burger King failed to preserve it (App'x C at 16-17), forcing the State to rely on the witnesses' descriptions of the video. Petitioner sought to prevent witness Patti Smith from offering an “opinion as to identification from [the] Burger King video, ” (App'x A at 33 ¶ 1), and more broadly, to prevent witnesses Dorothy Edmunds[2], Corporal Kim Davis, Detective Roger Spires, and Patti Smith from testifying “regarding the contents of [the] Burger King video, ” (id. at 33 ¶ 2). After hearing argument, the trial court denied the motion because the video was unavailable based on Burger King's failure to preserve the footage, which the court found was no fault of the State's. (App'x C at 19).[3]

The case went to a jury trial on May 22, 2013. (App'x D). Rebecca Crowley, an employee of Sharp's Discount Liquors, testified that she was robbed at gunpoint on October 30, 2011. (Id. at 32-33). At around 10:20 a.m., a tall African-American man entered the store wearing dark jeans, a black-and-blue backpack, gloves, and a motorcycle helmet. (Id. at 34-35). The man appeared to be talking to someone, so Ms. Crowley assumed he had a Bluetooth system inside his helmet. (Id.). Ms. Crowley assisted the man as he searched for vodka. (Id. at 36). As she returned to the counter, the man grabbed her hair, held a gun to her side, dragged her behind the counter, and demanded that she open the safe and the cash register. (Id. at 37). The man took about $1, 000 cash. (See Id. at 38-39, 95). He then zip-tied Crowley's hands and feet, rummaged around the manager's office, and left through the back door. (Id. at 42-45).

Thomas Bowser, who was a regular customer, happened upon the store while the robbery was in progress. He found the front door locked, and when he peered through the front window, he saw the robber dragging Crowley by her hair behind the counter. (Id. at 65-66). Bowser ran to the back of the store and saw an unoccupied car. (Id. at 67-68). Meanwhile, Crowley freed herself from the zip ties enough to open the front door for Bowser. (Id. at 46, 58). Bowser did not witness anyone leave the store, but he saw the vehicle drive away slowly with a single occupant. (Id. at 67, 68).

Sometime between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m., an African-American man wearing a tank top and dark pants entered a nearby Burger King through an infrequently used door. (Id. at 116-17). According to Dorothy Edmunds, the general manager working that day, this individual appeared to be “out of ordinary, ” “antsy, ” and as if he had just worked out. (Id. at 116). He went to the restroom and emerged 10 to 15 minutes later, having changed out of his pants into shorts. (Id. at 117-18). The man paced back and forth inside the store and was “sweating profusely.” (Id. at 118-19). The individual tried to use the restaurant's phone, asked if Patti Smith was working, and sat in the dining area without ordering any food. (Id. at 118-21). A Burger King employee later found the man's pants in the women's restroom and turned them over to the police. (Id. at 123-24).

Jacob Rodriguez, another Burger King employee, saw the suspicious person inside the restaurant. (Id. at 155). While Mr. Rodriguez was cleaning the restrooms, the individual told Mr. Rodriguez to give him money, which Mr. Rodriguez reported to the manager. (Id. at 157). Mr. Rodriguez described the individual as an African-American male who was slightly taller than he was and who appeared to be nervous. (Id. at 157, 159). Mr. Rodriguez saw the individual leave with two other people - a man and a woman - but he could offer no other details. (Id. at 156, 158).

Law enforcement officers responded to the liquor store after the robbery. (Id. at 73, 167). The officers did not find a car that matched the vehicle description given by Bowser. (Id. at 73). However, they found several items along a tree line 30 to 40 yards directly behind the liquor store. (Id. at 73-81, 169-75). These included two pieces of computer equipment from the store, a jacket, a black-and-blue backpack, gloves, and a BB gun. The officers found money inside the jacket as well. (Id. at 170-71). The gun was a polymer and metal BB gun that uses a CO2 cartridge. (Id. at 174-75, 237-39). According to Corporal Eric Allen, the weapon could cause serious bodily injury if used to bludgeon someone or to shoot them in the eye. (Id. at 237-39).

While officers were investigating the robbery, a Burger King customer approached the officers and told them about the suspicious person inside the restaurant. (Id. at 100, 176). Law enforcement officers made their way to the Burger King, watched the surveillance video, and described what they saw. (Id. at 121, 148-49, 178-80). Because of a miscommunication, Burger King overwrote the surveillance tape before investigators obtained a copy. (Id. at 131-33, 150-51, 181).

Patti Smith - the Burger King employee whom the suspicious person asked for - did not speak with police right away. (Id. at 214, 215). When Ms. Smith returned to work, the manager asked her to watch the surveillance footage and she identified the suspicious individual as “Quez.” (Id. at 130, 216). Ms. Smith explained that “Quez, ” Petitioner, was her neighbor's boyfriend. (Id. at 217). She also identified Petitioner in a lineup. (Id. at 235).

Law enforcement officers located Petitioner and took buccal swabs from him. (See id. at 269). According to the State's DNA analyst, James Pollock, there was a mixture of DNA inside the gloves and jacket recovered from behind the liquor store, but across all three items, there was only one “major contributor” of DNA. (Id. at 266-67, 268). Before he received the buccal swabs, Pollock also determined that the DNA profile of the major contributor was the same for all three items. (Id. at 267). The buccal swabs revealed that Petitioner's DNA matched the lone major contributor of DNA inside both gloves and the jacket. (Id. at 269-70).

At the end of trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Petitioner guilty as charged. (App'x A at 39-42). The court sentenced Petitioner to a term of 30 years in prison as to Count I (robbery with a weapon), consecutive terms of 5 years in prison each as to Counts II and III (grand theft and false imprisonment), and time served as to Count IV (battery). (App'x A at 71-83 (Judgment); App'x E at 36-39). The court adjudicated Petitioner as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (“PRR”) because Petitioner committed the offense within three years of being released from a state correctional facility. (Id. at 36); see also Fla. Stat. § 775.082(9)(a)(1) (2013).

Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence. Roland v. State, No. 5D13-2881 (Fla. 5th DCA). Petitioner's appellate counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). (App'x F). The Fifth District Court of Appeal per curiam affirmed the conviction and sentence without a written opinion, and the mandate issued on May 30, 2014. (App'x G); Roland v. State, 138 So.3d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

On October 22, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. (App'x H). Petitioner raised six grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and one claim of cumulative error. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing (App'x K), after which the court entered a written order denying the motion (App'x J).

Petitioner appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion. Roland v. State, No. 5D16-0438 (Fla. 5th DCA). He argued that the post-conviction court erred by not appointing him counsel and by denying his motion for post-conviction relief. (App'x L, N). The Fifth DCA per curiam affirmed the lower court's decision without a written opinion. (App'x P). Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing, which was also denied, and the mandate issued on October 16, 2017. (App'x O, P); Roland v. State, 228 So.3d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). This federal habeas Petition followed.

III. Governing Legal Principles A. Standard of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT