Sinclair v. Wainwright

• Decision Date: 20 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 84-3820,84-3820
• Citation: 814 F.2d 1516
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
• Parties: Willie J. SINCLAIR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT and Jim Smith, Respondents-Appellees.

Page 1516

814 F.2d 1516

Willie J. SINCLAIR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT and Jim Smith, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 84-3820.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 20, 1987.

Robert Woolfork, Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.

John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondents-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Before FAY and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and HENLEY ^*, Senior Circuit Judge.

HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Willie J. Sinclair filed a petition for habeas corpus in the district court, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, alleging that (1) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel; (2) a key witness was incompetent to testify; (3) he was denied a speedy trial; and (4) the prosecution suppressed evidence favorable to his defense. The United States Magistrate ¹ granted the State's motion for summary judgment. Sinclair appeals arguing that the magistrate had no authority to grant the motion, and, in the alternative, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his allegations. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

BACKGROUND

Sinclair was indicted in a Florida state court for the fatal shooting of Elvin Speights. On the day of the murder Sinclair and Elvin had a fight over money matters. The fight broke up and both men went home. Two witnesses, Cleveland Speights, Elvin's son, and Frank Philips, testified that they were in Elvin's trailer home when Sinclair came over later in the day. They testified that the following events occurred. Elvin was passed out in a drunken stupor in a bedroom when Sinclair came to the trailer. Sinclair had a few angry words with Cleveland, then left, returning shortly with a shotgun. Frank realized that there was going to be trouble and he left. Cleveland tried to awaken his father, but could not. He had a minor tussle with Sinclair and then he left through a back window to go to a neighbor's house for help. What happened immediately after that is unclear, but Sinclair apparently also left the trailer. Someone called the police and told them that there was "a man with a gun after another man." Cleveland testified that a short time later he saw Sinclair reenter his father's trailer with a shotgun, heard a shot, and then saw Sinclair leave the trailer and drive off. When he returned to the trailer with the police, his father was fatally wounded.

Sinclair briefly testified at trial. His testimony was contradictory to both Frank and Cleveland's testimony. He testified that he did go over to Elvin's trailer, but that he did not have a gun and that nobody else was there except Elvin. He stated that he and Elvin had a talk, resolved their dispute, and then he went home.

During the trial the State introduced into evidence a spent green shotgun shell, which it stated was found in Sinclair's yard, and three green shells. A State officer testified that he remembered finding some green shells, but could not remember whether the shells were in the defendant's gun or whether he found them in Sinclair's house from which a shotgun was recovered. A firearm expert testified that the pellets recovered from Speights' body were the same type of pellets as those found in the loaded green shells. The expert also testified that the spent shotgun shell found in the yard was of the same type as the other green shells, but he could not determine whether it had been fired from defendant's gun.

In July of 1980 a jury found Sinclair guilty of murder in the second degree, and he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The Florida First District Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction without an opinion. Sinclair v. State, 412 So.2d 479 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). Sinclair filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, which was also denied without opinion. He then filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court.

Both Sinclair and the State consented to have the case decided by a United States Magistrate. The first magistrate to hear the case, Magistrate Everett M. Anderson, denied the State's motion for summary judgment. The district court ² voided this decision on procedural grounds and turned the proceedings over to Magistrate Crongeyer. Magistrate Crongeyer granted the State's motion for summary judgment, and Sinclair appealed directly to this court. ³

DISCUSSION

I. Statutory Authority of Magistrate.

For reasons which are not entirely clear, the case was first assigned to part-time Magistrate Anderson. The district court held that Magistrate Anderson's decision was void because he could not conduct the proceedings under the requirements of the Federal Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)(1) (1979 amendment). This statute states a part-time magistrate may conduct proceedings only if he serves as a full-time judicial officer or if the chief judge of the district court certifies that a full-time magistrate is not reasonably available. Id. Neither of these requirements was met. The district court also stated that the parties had agreed in the consent form to have the proceedings conducted by Magistrate Crongeyer, a full-time magistrate, not Magistrate Anderson.

Sinclair argues that the district court erred in voiding Magistrate Anderson's decision. He states that there is no proof that Magistrate Crongeyer was available, Crongeyer's name was not written on the consent form until after the parties had signed it, and he was entitled to rely on the court's first assignment of magistrate. These arguments are without merit. They fail to dispute the clear showing that Magistrate Anderson was not qualified to conduct the proceeding. Obviously Crongeyer was available. He did in fact conduct proceedings and he did so with consent.

Sinclair next argues that Magistrate Crongeyer had no authority to decide a summary judgment motion. He argues that the Federal Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c), which permits magistrates to enter judgments in civil cases under certain conditions, is unconstitutional because it violates article III of the Constitution. At least nine other circuits which have considered this issue have held that section 636(c) is constitutional because the act requires that the parties and the district court consent to the transfer of the case to a magistrate and because the district court retains sufficient control over the magistrate. See Gairola v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of General Services, 753 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (4th Cir.1985), and cases cited therein. We find the reasoning of these cases persuasive and agree that subsection (c) of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 is not unconstitutional. Thus we turn to the question whether Magistrate Crongeyer's summary judgment was erroneous.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the case may be decided as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom should be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Thrasher v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 734 F.2d 637, 638 (11th Cir.1984).

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Sinclair argues that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and prepare his case for trial. He states that as a result of inadequate preparation serious errors were made at trial. The affidavit of trial counsel was submitted to the magistrate, and it disputes Sinclair's allegations. Trial counsel stated that a thorough investigation was made and he explained in detail why the actions or omissions complained of were matters of trial strategy.

In order to show that trial counsel's performance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction, defendant must show that counsel's performance was seriously deficient and that he was prejudiced by the deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). There is a strong presumption that trial counsel's conduct is the result of trial strategy, and "strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable." Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066.

A. Submission of false evidence and suppression of favorable evidence.

Sinclair insists that the police took red shells from his shotgun, not the green ones which were introduced at trial. He argues that the police switched the shotgun shells in order to link his shotgun with the Sinclair does not state what supporting evidence trial counsel could have found if a more thorough investigation had been made (other than forcing a confession from the State that its officers were lying and had the red shells). The issue here is simply one of credibility; the State said the shells were green, Sinclair now says they were red. At trial, Officer Bill Sheffler testified that he found the shells and that as best as he could remember they were green. He stated that he turned over everything he found to his lieutenant and that he did not add anything or subtract anything. On cross-examination Officer Sheffler admitted that he did not remember whether the shells were found in the gun or not. Sinclair's own testimony was very limited. He did not testify as to the color of his shells; he only testified that he never took a gun over to Elvin's and he did not shoot him.

spent green shell found in his yard. If a proper investigation had been made, Sinclair argues, this switching could have been shown at trial. Sinclair seems to argue that trial counsel should have made a formal charge of prosecutorial misconduct before the judge, or, alternatively, he should have impeached the credibility of the officer who testified that he found green shells. Trial counsel stated that he did not charge the State with introducing false evidence and withholding favorable...