Spriggs v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 22 June 2021
• Docket Number: 2:18-CV-120-Z-BR
• Parties: RONALD T. SPRIGGS, Petitioner, v. BRIAN THOMAS, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

RONALD T. SPRIGGS, Petitioner, v. BRIAN THOMAS, et al., Respondents.

2:18-CV-120-Z-BR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION

June 22, 2021

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Ronald T. Spriggs ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, challenging the constitutional and statutory legality or validity of his state court contempt conviction. (ECF 1). The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge recommends Petitioner's application for federal habeas corpus relief be DENIED.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner is a licensed attorney who practices criminal defense law. This case arises from a set of circumstances where Petitioner entered an appearance in a criminal case and then later moved to withdraw for a lack of payment by the criminal defendant. The state trial court judge denied the motion to withdraw and ordered the Petitioner to appear for trial. After Petitioner's refusal to proceed to trial, the state trial judge held him in contempt. Petitioner challenges that state court contempt judgment.

On December 21, 2016, Petitioner appeared at a change of plea hearing for a criminal defendant, Mr. Marcus Donell Ray ("Ray"), who was charged with a serious felony offense and set to enter a guilty plea. (See ECF 1-1, at 10.) Petitioner informed the state court judge that Ray's mother was gathering funds to hire Petitioner to represent Ray in the criminal case scheduled for trial in January of 2017, and Ray proceeded to withdraw his plea paperwork and requested to proceed with trial. (See id.). Petitioner informed the state court judge that he expected to be hired to represent Ray within a week to ten days. (Id.). Petitioner acknowledged at the December hearing that he did not yet represent Ray, and the state court judge stated that Ray's current appointed counsel would represent Ray at the January 2017 trial if Petitioner did not file to substitute counsel. (See id., at 11).

On January 2, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to substitute counsel and a motion for continuance of the January 3, 2017 trial setting. (See id., at 26). The state court trial judge granted both motions, and Petitioner was entered as counsel of record for Ray. (Id., at 26-27). On January 29, 2017, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel with the state trial court, citing Ray's failure to pay the agreed upon representation fee. (Id., at 15-16). The state trial judge denied the motion on February 21, 2017. (Id., at 14, 18).

On March 3, 2017, the state trial judge sent Petitioner a letter warning counsel that his motion to withdraw had been denied and informing Petitioner that the trial court would not tolerate behavior from the Petitioner similar to that of Petitioner's associate firm member, who had previously been denied the right to withdraw before trial in another district court and had then refused to participate in the criminal trial in any way. (See id., at 26). Petitioner was warned in this letter that a failure to appear for trial would result in the state court judge's filing of a grievance with the state bar. (Id.). On equal date therewith, the state trial judge entered an "order to appear" mandating Petitioner's presence at the special trial setting for Ray on May 1, 2017. (See id., at 28). Importantly, the order to appear also required Petitioner to "conduct the defense of Marcus Donell Ray." (Id.). The order did not require any specific trial strategies to be employed by Petitioner. (Id.).

On March 8, 2017, Petitioner sent a response letter to the state trial judge, wherein he asserted that the state trial judge's letter constituted an "advisory opinion" about how the trial judge would rule on any future announcement by the Petitioner that he was "not ready" to proceed to trial. (See id., at 46). Petitioner further asserted that the state trial judge's letter created a conflict-of-interest inPetitioner representing Ray subsequent to the motion to withdraw, and further alleged the state trial judge was acting unethically and in violation of Petitioner's and Ray's constitutional rights. (See id., at 46). Petitioner wrote "if I am ready, I will proceed [to trial] and if I am not ready, I will announce not ready." (Id.). Petitioner further alleged he would not try the case "against Mr. Ray's consent and will cause me [sic] severe and undo economic injury." (Id., at 47). Petitioner went on to state that "[i]f you will pay my office $15,000.00, with $7,500 up front, I well [sic] set my staff working on this case." (Id.).

On March 14, 2017, Petitioner filed a second motion to withdraw as counsel for Ray, referencing the state trial judge's "threatening letter." (See id., at 22-24). On March 31, 2017¹, the state trial judge held a hearing on Petitioner's second motion to withdraw. (See id., at 30-39). Ray testified solely that his mother and sister had not paid Petitioner in accordance with the representation agreement and that he was aware and agreed to Petitioner's motion to withdraw as an attorney. (See id., at 35-39). Notably, Ray was not asked if he objected to the continued representation of Petitioner after the state trial judge's denial of the motion to withdraw. (See id.).

The state trial judge denied the second motion to withdraw at the hearing in March, and set the case for a special trial setting on May 1, 2017. (See id., at 39). On April 10, 2017, Petitioner's ex parte motions for experts (ECF 1-1, at 60-77, 92-94), were denied by the state trial judge. (See id., at 54, 86-91). Petitioner requested several experts to assist with investigation, and he also listed himself and his son (another attorney) as experts requiring compensation previously requested by his letter to the state trial judge. (See id., at 60-77, 92-94).

On May 1, 2017, Petitioner appeared at Ray's special trial setting and announced "not ready" for trial. (See id., at 101). Petitioner stated "I filed pretrial motions and they were denied. I can'tproceed without those." (Id., at 102). Additionally, Petitioner argued, "I feel there's a conflict of interest in this case also. I talked with my client and he feels the same way." (Id.). The state trial judge warned Petitioner that he would be held in contempt if he refused to participate in the meaningful defense of Ray for the trial. (Id., at 103-105). The state trial judge then proceeded to give Petitioner time to consider his position. (See id., at 109). On April 30, 2017, after business hours, Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the state trial judge; however, because the motion was not in compliance with the filing rules for the district, it was rejected for filing the morning of the trial setting. (See id., at 109-118). The state trial judge ruled that he would not consider the motion as it was untimely. (Id., at 119). Petitioner was given the opportunity to consult with his own attorney, Jeff Blackburn, and then proceeded to announce "not ready" for trial a second time. (Id., at 120-122).

The state trial judge held Petitioner in contempt of court and sentenced him to ten days in the Potter County Jail. (Id., at 123). The state trial judge allowed Petitioner release on his own recognizance pending a hearing before an independent judge to review the contempt finding. (Id.). A judgment of contempt was entered. (Id., at 128-129). On July 28, 2017, an independent state judge reviewed the contempt proceedings and held a hearing. (Id., at 136). Petitioner's contempt conviction was sustained, and he was sentenced to seven (7) days in the Potter County Jail. (Id.).

Petitioner filed applications for leave to file a mandamus and writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) to reverse his contempt conviction, which were denied. See Ex Parte Ronald T. Spriggs, WR-87,260-01 & WR-87,260-02 (June 27, 2018). On June 27, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant federal application for habeas corpus. (ECF 1). Petitioner's motion for release from custody and stay of sentence pending this Court's decision on the merits was denied. (ECF 9). Petitioner has now served his full seven (7) day sentence and discharged his punishment.

II. PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS

Petitioner contends his July 28, 2017, conviction for contempt of court is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States (ECF 1 at 15); although Petitioner's arguments are not clearly delineated, the Court determines Petitioner loosely raises the following claims for relief:

(1) Petitioner argues that state trial judge Doug Woodburn ordered Petitioner to proceed to trial in violation of his client's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, thus rendering the Court's "order to proceed" an unlawful order. (See id., at 19-33).

(2) Petitioner contends that insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction for "constructive" contempt. (Id., at 24-27).

(3) Petitioner asserts that his Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the contempt conviction because the order to proceed to trial for representing a criminal defendant without just compensation amounted to involuntary servitude and deprivation of property without due process of law. (Id., at 36).

(4) Petitioner alleges that his Fifth Amendment rights under the Takings Clause were violated by state District Judge Doug Woodburn's order to proceed with representation of the criminal defendant without just compensation. (Id., at 36).

(5) Petitioner claims his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated when his objections to the admission of evidence during his July 28, 2017, contempt hearing were overruled. (Id., at 37).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner met the "in custody" requirement at the time he filed the petition. See Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death...