Sears v. Sellers

• Decision Date: 23 May 2018
• Docket Number: 1:10-CV-1983-WSD
• Parties: DEMARCUS ALI SEARS, Petitioner, v. ERIC SELLERS, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

DEMARCUS ALI SEARS, Petitioner, v. ERIC SELLERS, Warden,Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison,¹ Respondent.

1:10-CV-1983-WSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

May 23, 2018

Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2254

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of the merits of the claims in the petition. After careful consideration, this Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief.

I. Background and Factual Summary

A. State Court Proceedings

On September 22, 1993, a jury sitting in Cobb County Superior Court convicted Petitioner Demarcus Ali Sears of armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury. On September 25, 1993, after a penalty phase hearing, the jury found four statutory aggravating circumstances and recommended that Petitionerbe sentenced to death. The trial court imposed a death sentence for the kidnapping with bodily injury conviction and a life sentence for the armed robbery conviction.

On July 18, 1996, the trial court denied Petitioner's motion for new trial. Petitioner appealed, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's convictions, but remanded the case as to Petitioner's death sentence to allow Petitioner to develop the record regarding his claim of jury misconduct. Sears v. State, 493 S.E.2d 180, 188 (1997). After the remand, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's death sentence. Sears v. State, 514 S.E.2d 426, 437 (1999). The United States Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari on October 12, 1999.

Petitioner next filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Butts County Superior Court, which court denied the petition on January 9, 2008. The Georgia Supreme Court denied Petitioner's certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his habeas corpus petition on September 28, 2009. The United States Supreme Court, however, granted Petitioner's writ of certiorari, and upon review of Petitioner's claims, vacated and remanded, holding that the Butts County Superior Court failed to apply the proper prejudice inquiry in determining that trialcounsel's facially inadequate mitigation investigation did not prejudice defendant. Sears v. Upton, 561 U.S. 945 (2010).

After the remand, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated its order denying the certificate of probable cause, vacated the Butts County Superior Court's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court's opinion. On August 16, 2011, the Butts County Superior Court again denied Petitioner's habeas corpus petition, concluding that Petitioner could not demonstrate prejudice with respect to trial counsel's performance during the penalty phase of the trial and otherwise adopting the Butts County court's prior order denying relief. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Petitioner's certificate of probable cause, and, in an opinion issued on November 18, 2013, affirmed the lower court. Sears v. Humphrey, 751 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. 2013). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review on May 19, 2014. Sears v. Chatman, 134 S. Ct. 2292 (2014). The instant action was originally filed in 2010 after the Georgia Supreme Court denied Petitioner's certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of habeas corpus relief. After the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari review in that action, this Court stayed this action to allow Petitioner to exhaust his state court remedies.

B. Factual Summary of Petitioner's Crimes

According to the Georgia Supreme Court, the evidence presented at Petitioner's trial was sufficient for the jury to find that:

[O]n the afternoon of October 7, 1990, [Petitioner] and Phillip Williams were walking through Atlanta because their car had broken down. Wanting to return home to Ohio, where they lived, they walked to a Waffle House in Smyrna and tried to borrow money from several patrons in the restaurant. They told the patrons that their car had broken down and they needed money to go to Cincinnati. [Petitioner] carried a black briefcase that contained brass knuckles, knives and a set of old handcuffs that was missing a key. He opened the briefcase in the restaurant and tried to sell some of the items to a customer. After receiving directions and a couple of dollars for bus fare, [Petitioner] and Williams walked to a nearby Kroger food store. A police officer observed them loitering near the Kroger parking lot and briefly spoke with them before he left in response to a radio call. Subsequently, they decided to steal a car so they could drive back to Cincinnati.

They spotted the victim, Gloria Wilbur, when she parked her 1985 Buick and entered the Kroger. Around 8:00 p.m., Ms. Wilbur returned to her car and placed her groceries in the trunk. [Petitioner] approached her, struck her with the brass knuckles and forced her into the car. Williams then got behind the wheel and they drove north on I-75. [Petitioner] told Ms. Wilbur to keep quiet, pulled her into the back seat, and handcuffed her with her hands behind her back. When they stopped for gas and hamburgers, [Petitioner] wedged Ms. Wilbur down between the seats and covered her with book bags to prevent discovery. While they were driving through Tennessee, he raped her.

They crossed the border into Kentucky around 1:00 a.m. and stopped the car. Despite her pleas to remain in the car, [Petitioner] took the victim into the bushes along I-75 and stabbed her to death.

Ms. Wilbur's body was found, still handcuffed, almost a week later. Her abandoned Buick was discovered in a Cincinnati suburb. Bloodstains in the car matched the victim and pubic hair taken from the back seat matched [Petitioner].

Based on an identification by witnesses at the Waffle House and a tip from an Ohio informant, the police questioned Williams and [Petitioner]. Both men gave statements. [Petitioner] admitted that he had taken the Buick and kidnapped, raped and killed the victim. His statement matched Williams' statement, except that [Petitioner] claimed that it was Williams who had struck Ms. Wilbur with the brass knuckles and Williams claimed that it was [Petitioner]. Both men stated that only [Petitioner] had raped and stabbed her. [Petitioner] also consented to a search of his mother's house, where he lived, and was escorted by police to this residence. He took the police to his room and showed them the black briefcase and brass knuckles. Williams pled guilty in exchange for two life sentences and testified for the state at [Petitioner]'s trial.

Sears v. State, 493 S.E.2d at 182-83.

C. Proceedings in This Court

On June 25, 2010, days before the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in his state court habeas corpus action, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ([1]). On August 20, 2010, the Court stayed the action pending resolution of the state habeas proceedings. ([9]). The Court held the action in abeyance until May 29, 2014, when the Court ordered Respondent to file the underlying record documents and set a deadline for Petitioner to file an Amended Petition. ([13]). Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition onAugust 4, 2014, asserting sixteen claims for relief. ([28]). On April 8, 2016, the Court reviewed Respondent's procedural defenses and dismissed a portion of Petitioner's Claims I, V, VII, and XI and all of Petitioner's Claims IX, XIII, and XV. ([37]). On June 20, 2017, the Court denied Petitioner's motions for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. ([54]). The parties briefed Petitioner's remaining claims, which the Court now considers.

II. Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person held in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court if that person is held in violation of his rights under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). This power is limited, however, because a restriction applies to claims that have been "adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under § 2254(d), a habeas corpus application "shall not be granted with respect to [such a] claim . . . unless the adjudication of the claim"

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

This standard is "difficult to meet," Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011), and "highly deferential," demanding "that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt," Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and requiring the petitioner to carry the burden of proof. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (citing Visciotti, 537 U.S. at 25). In Pinholster, the Supreme Court further held

that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers, in the past tense, to a state-court adjudication that "resulted in" a decision that was contrary to, or "involved" an unreasonable application of, established law. This backward-looking language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time i.e., the record before the state court.

Id. at 181-82; see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 (2003) (holding that state court decisions are measured against Supreme Court precedent at "the time the state court [rendered] its decision.").

In Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the Supreme Court analyzed how federal courts should apply § 2254(d). To determine whether a particular state court dec...