Sneed v. Beard

• Decision Date: 06 September 2018
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5328
• Citation: 328 F.Supp.3d 412
• Parties: Willie Edward SNEED, Petitioner, v. Deputy Secretary Jeffrey BEARD, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

328 F.Supp.3d 412

Willie Edward SNEED, Petitioner,

v.Deputy Secretary Jeffrey BEARD, et al., Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5328

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed September 6, 2018

Billy H. Nolas, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Victor Julio Abreu, Federal Public Defender's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Marilyn F. Murray, District Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rufe, District JudgeBefore the Court is Petitioner Willie Edward Sneed's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After a careful review of the filings in this matter, and for the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the amended petition.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 14, 1980, Petitioner shot Calvin Hawkins to death because Hawkins supposedly sold Petitioner aspirin instead of cocaine. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court laid out the facts of this case as follows in its direct appeal decision:

On October 13, 1980, appellant went to a "shooting gallery" in Philadelphia to obtain and "shoot" drugs. Before the night passed, there was to be a shooting of more than drugs. At the "gallery" there were no drugs at hand. "Boobie" Liverman, a friend of the appellant, told him where drugs were available. "Signman" Henderson overheard and offered to take appellant to the pusher. Appellant and Henderson went to the pusher's house, but he was not at home. Sitting on the front steps of the pusher's house was a stranger, who when told they were in the market for cocaine, offered some. The drugs were, however, a distance away, and the stranger offered a ride in a parked, white Lincoln Continental; the type of a luxury car whose shining chrome so often reflects the grim graffitied streets and haunted faces of its victims.

In the car were two other strangers to appellant and his friend Henderson. They all got in and drove to another section of the city. They stopped at a bar and appellant's friend Henderson got out of the car and waited while appellant and the other strangers went for the drugs. They never returned for Henderson, and he took a cab home. After a while appellant came to Henderson's house and told Henderson, who would later tell the jury, that he had been swindled by the three strangers who sold him aspirin for cocaine and would not return his money. The three strangers who would not return his money drove appellant back to the "gallery". When they did appellant snatched the keys from the Lincoln, ran into the gallery, and got his gun. Rather than return his money the three men, abandoning the car, ran. Appellant chased one Calvin Hawkins, and shot him three (3) times. Hawkins took cover behind a parked car. Then, as appellant told Henderson, and Henderson told the jury,

I [Appellant] jumped on top of the car and the guy looked up at me [Appellant] and said, "Damn, you shot me twice; ain't that enough?"

I [Appellant] shot him ... in the head point blank and his head hit the ground.

After furnishing his account of the shooting, the appellant spent the rest of the night at Henderson's home. Henderson buried Sneed's weapon in his backyard for safekeeping. The appellant left in the morning after Henderson returned his revolver.¹

On March 14, 1985, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and related charges by a jury in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County for the death of Calvin Hawkins.

After a sentencing hearing the following day, he was sentenced to death. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.²

On January 16, 1997, Petitioner filed a pro se PCRA petition. On July 20, 1999, then-Governor Thomas Ridge issued a warrant scheduling Petitioner's execution. Two days later, Petitioner filed a counseled, emergency motion for stay of execution. The Court of Common Pleas granted the stay of execution and ordered the filing of a counseled PCRA petition. Accordingly, Petitioner filed a counseled PCRA petition raising twenty-five claims for relief from his conviction and sentence of death.

The PCRA court granted an evidentiary hearing on two issues: (1) whether the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of Batson v. Kentucky³ ; and (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to develop and present mitigating evidence at the penalty hearing. Evidentiary hearings were held in September and November of 2001.

On January 4, 2002, the PCRA court granted Petitioner a new trial on the Batson claim and a new penalty hearing on the basis of trial counsel's ineffectiveness during the penalty phase. The Commonwealth appealed. On June 19, 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the PCRA court's grant of a new trial and upheld the grant of a new penalty hearing.⁴ The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then relinquished jurisdiction to the PCRA court.

The PCRA court scheduled a hearing for December 27, 2006, to determine the status of the remaining claims. Prior to the hearing, on December 4, 2006, Petitioner filed a protective habeas petition before this Court. The PCRA court orally denied the remaining guilt phase claims without holding an evidentiary hearing and issued an opinion on March 14, 2007. Petitioner appealed, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the appeal on December 13, 2007, because the order was not entered on the docket. Consequently, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing the remaining claims on October 21, 2009, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for a new penalty phase hearing on June 4, 2012.⁵

On December 8, 2012, Petitioner was re-sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Following Petitioner's re-sentencing, this Court removed this case from civil suspense and ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner thus filed the instant, amended petition.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996⁶ ("AEDPA") governs habeas petitions, like the one before this Court. Under the AEDPA, "a district court shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus [filed on] behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."⁷

When the claims presented in a federal habeas petition have been decided on the merits in state court, a district court may not grant relief unless the adjudication of the claim in state court resulted in a decision: (1) "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) "that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding."⁸

A state court's decision is "contrary to ... clearly established" federal law where the state court applies a rule of law that differs from the governing rule set forth in Supreme Court precedent, or "if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [its] precedent."⁹ A decision is an "unreasonable application" of clearly established law where the state court "identifies the correct governing legal principle ... but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case."¹⁰ The "unreasonable application" clause requires more than an incorrect or erroneous state court decision.¹¹ Instead, the application of clearly established law must be "objectively unreasonable."¹²

A petitioner faces a high hurdle in challenging the factual basis for a prior state-court decision rejecting a claim. The prisoner bears the burden of rebutting the state court's factual findings by clear and convincing evidence.¹³ Furthermore, "a state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance."¹⁴

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner raises six grounds for relief. First, he argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor used peremptory challenges during jury selection in a racially discriminatory manner, and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object. Second, Petitioner urges the Court to vacate his conviction because he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the guilt stage, in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Third, Petitioner argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Fourth, Petitioner seeks to vacate his conviction because of improper interference with the jury. Fifth, Petitioner asserts that the Commonwealth withheld material and exculpatory evidence in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Sixth, Petitioner urges the Court to vacate his conviction and sentence in light of the prejudicial effects of the cumulative error in this case.

A. Petitioner's Claims That the Prosecutor Used His Peremptory Challenges in a Racially Discriminatory Manner in Violation of Batson , and that Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Object or Raise the Issue on Appeal, Do Not Provide a Basis for Relief

Petitioner first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor used peremptory challenges during jury selection in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of Batson v. Kentucky ,¹⁵ and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to contemporaneously object or raise the issue on direct appeal. Petitioner, who is African-American, was tried and convicted in 1985. To demonstrate racial discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges at the time of Petitioner's trial, he was required to show a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in jury selection across...