Stallworth v. Inch, Case No.: 3:17cv937/MCR/EMT

• Court: United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
• Writing for the Court: ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
• Parties: DIONTE LAMAR STALLWORTH, Petitioner, v. MARK S. INCH, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 08 July 2019
• Docket Number: Case No.: 3:17cv937/MCR/EMT

DIONTE LAMAR STALLWORTH, Petitioner,
v.
MARK S. INCH, Respondent.

Case No.: 3:17cv937/MCR/EMT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION

July 8, 2019

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court on Petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and supporting memorandum, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Nos. 5, 6). Respondent filed an answer and relevant portions of the state court record (ECF No. 27). Petitioner filed a reply (ECF No. 31).

The case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After careful consideration of all issues presented by the parties, it is the opinion of the undersigned that no evidentiary hearing is required for the disposition of this matter, Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. It is

Page 2

further the opinion of the undersigned that the pleadings and attachments before the court show that Petitioner is not entitled to relief.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The relevant aspects of the procedural background of this case are established by the state court record (see ECF No. 27).¹ Petitioner was charged in the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County, Florida, Case No. 2011-CF-417, with one count of attempted armed kidnapping with a weapon (Count 1), one count of aggravated assault by threat with a firearm (Count 2), and one count of felony failure to appear (Count 3) (Ex. B1 at 3). On August 17, 2011, a jury trial was held on Counts 1 and 2; Count 3 was severed for trial (Ex. B2 at 106-200, Ex. B3 at 201-364). At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Petitioner guilty of attempted armed kidnapping as charged, with specific findings that Petitioner carried or used a weapon, actually possessed a firearm, and discharged a firearm during commission of the offense (Ex. B1 at 36-37). The jury also found Petitioner guilty of aggravated assault as charged, with specific findings that he carried and actually possessed a firearm, and discharged a firearm during commission of the offense (id.). On September 28,

Page 3

2011, the court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent mandatory minimum terms of twenty (20) years in prison, with jail credit of 137 days (id. at 41-84). The State filed a nolle prosequi on Count 3 on September 30, 2011 (id. at 87).

Petitioner, through counsel, appealed the judgment to the Florida First District Court of Appeal ("First DCA"), Case No. 1D11-5564 (Ex. B4). The First DCA affirmed the judgment per curiam without written opinion on April 17, 2013 (Ex. B7). Stallworth v. State, 110 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Table). The mandate issued May 3, 2013 (Ex. B8). On June 5, 2013, the First DCA denied Petitioner's motion for rehearing and/or written opinion (Ex. B10).

On October 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief and supporting memorandum in the state circuit court, pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (Ex. C1 at 96-113). The court granted a limited evidentiary hearing on two of Petitioner's five claims (Grounds Two and Four), and appointed counsel for Petitioner (id. at 120-21). At the commencement of the evidentiary hearing on March 17, 2015, Petitioner's counsel announced they were abandoning Ground Four, and would proceed only on Ground Two (id. at 136-59). On June 30, 2015, the circuit court issued an order denying Petitioner's Rule 3.850 motion (id. at 160-65). Petitioner appealed the decision to the First DCA, Case No. 1D15-3657 (Ex. C2). The First DCA affirmed the lower court's decision per curiam

Page 4

without written opinion on June 21, 2016 (Ex. C5). Stallworth v. State, 193 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (Table). The mandate issued July 19, 2016 (Ex. C6).

On August 2, 2016, Petitioner filed a "Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Alleging Extraordinary Circumstances" in the state circuit court (Ex. D1 at 1-4). The court summarily denied the motion on January 31, 2017 (id. at 10-11). Petitioner appealed the decision to the First DCA, Case No. 1D17-0843 (Ex. D2). The First DCA affirmed the lower court's decision per curiam without written opinion on August 25, 2017 (Ex. D4). Stallworth v. State, 232 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (Table). The mandate issued September 22, 2017 (Ex. D5).

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas action on December 19, 2017 (ECF No. 1).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts may grant habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2254(d) provides, in relevant part:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings 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

Page 5

(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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (2011).

The United States Supreme Court explained the framework for § 2254 review in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000). The appropriate test was described by Justice O'Connor as follows:

Under the "contrary to" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the "unreasonable application" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.

Id., 529 U.S. at 412-13 (O'Connor, J., concurring).

Employing the Williams framework, on any issue raised in a federal habeas petition upon which there has been an adjudication on the merits in a state court proceeding, the federal court must first ascertain the "clearly established Federal law," namely, "the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court render[ed] its decision." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003). The law is "clearly established" only when a Supreme Court holding at the time of the state court

Page 6

decision embodies the legal principle at issue. Thaler v. Haynes, 559 U.S. 43, 47, 130 S. Ct. 1171, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1003 (2010); Woods v. Donald, — U.S. —, 135 S. Ct. 1372, 1376, 191 L. Ed. 2d 464 (2015) ("We have explained that clearly established Federal law for purposes of § 2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court's decisions." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

After identifying the governing legal principle(s), the federal court determines whether the state court adjudication is contrary to the clearly established Supreme Court case law. The adjudication is not contrary to Supreme Court precedent merely because it fails to cite to that precedent. Rather, the adjudication is "contrary" only if either the reasoning or the result contradicts the relevant Supreme Court cases. See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S. Ct. 362, 154 L. Ed. 2d 263 (2002). Where there is no Supreme Court precedent on point, the state court's conclusion cannot be contrary to clearly established federal law. See Woods, 135 S. Ct. at 1377 (holding, as to claim that counsel was per se ineffective in being absent from the courtroom for ten minutes during testimony concerning other defendants: "Because none of our cases confront the specific question presented by this case, the state court's decision could not be contrary to any holding from this Court." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). If the state court decision is contrary to clearly

Page 7

established federal law, the federal habeas court must independently consider the merits of the petitioner's claim. See Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 954, 127 S. Ct. 2842, 168 L. Ed. 2d 662 (2007).

If the "contrary to" clause is not satisfied, the federal habeas court next determines whether the state court "unreasonably applied" the governing legal principles set forth in the Supreme Court's cases. The federal court defers to the state court's reasoning unless the state court's application of the legal principle(s) was "objectively unreasonable" in light of the record before the state court. Williams, 529 U.S. at 409; see Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 652, 124 S. Ct. 2736, 159 L. Ed. 2d 683 (2004) (per curiam). In applying this standard, the Supreme Court has emphasized:

When reviewing state criminal convictions on collateral review, federal judges are required to afford state courts due respect by overturning their decisions only when there could be no reasonable dispute that they were wrong. Federal habeas review thus exists as "a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal." Harrington, supra, at 102-103, 131 S. Ct. 770 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Woods, 135 S. Ct. at 1376 (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S. Ct. 770, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011)).

Section 2254(d) also allows federal habeas relief for a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court where that adjudication "resulted in a decision that was based

Page 8

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The "unreasonable determination of the...