Stokes v. Singletary

Decision Date27 January 1992
Docket NumberNos. 89-3180,89-3493,s. 89-3180
PartiesDurham Eldon STOKES, Petitioner -Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Florida Department of Corrections; and Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., Tampa, Fla. (court appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Margene A. Roper, Belle B. Turner, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, Fla., for respondents-appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before COX and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON *, Senior Circuit Judge.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

This habeas corpus petition requires examination of an inculpatory confession taken without the presence of counsel after counsel had been appointed, and admitted into evidence at the trial resulting in petitioner's conviction. Approving the magistrate's report and recommendation, the district court determined that petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel prior to his confession, and that his confession was not the result of psychological coercion. Our review of the record reveals factual, procedural and constitutional problems. The state and federal courts heretofore have not explained their resolution of the factual disputes, supplemented the inadequate record or analyzed this case under the appropriate constitutional law. Accordingly, we reverse and remand, directing the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to analyze thoroughly in a written order the consequent legal conclusions based on its factual findings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 8, 1974, petitioner-appellant Durham Eldon Stokes attended a beer party given by his motorcycle gang, known as the Outlaws Motorcycle Gang (Outlaws), at their meeting place in Orlando, Florida. William T. Kish, Richard L. Farless and Steven Almond, members of a rival motorcycle group, the Pagans, were invited. Subsequently, the three Pagans were beaten, kicked, bound, and had their valuables taken by some of the Outlaws.

Following the severe beatings, Stokes and two other Outlaws members were ordered to place Kish, Farless and Almond in a van and to transport them from Orange County, Florida for burial. In the course of the trip, Almond kicked open the side door of the van and fell onto the Florida turnpike. A passing motorist took Almond to a highway patrol station, where he reported the incident. Stokes and the other two Outlaws continued to drive to an isolated area, where they left Kish and Farless away from the highway. Thereafter, Stokes disassociated himself from the Outlaws and lived with his wife and children in Arkansas from June, 1974, until December, 1977.

On December 7, 1977, a hunter in rural Sumter County, Florida, discovered two male skeletons. Through medical and dental records, these remains were identified On December, 22, 1977, Stokes had his initial appearance in the state trial court. The trial judge appointed the public defender to represent Stokes, who was given a card with the information necessary for him to contact his attorney. 2 Immediately upon Stokes's return to his cell following his initial appearance, Lieutenant Jim Roop and Sergeant William M. Hager of the Sumter County Sheriff's Department, the investigating officers for the case, had him taken to an interrogation room where they questioned him. Neither officer informed the public defender's office that they intended to interrogate Stokes.

                as Kish and Farless.   Based on an Orange County, Florida information, 1 Stokes was arrested in Arkansas on December 16, 1977, transported to Florida, and arrived in Orange County on December 21, 1977
                

Portions of the interview of Stokes were taped and transcribed. After Stokes was read his Miranda rights, he described his knowledge of and participation in the incident involving the three Pagans. His involvement prior to the van transportation of Kish, Farless and Almond was to kick one of them, but he could not recall whom. Thereafter, Stokes, who admitted that he was drunk and had taken drugs, was told to station himself outside the enclosed area where the beatings occurred. He stated that he did not participate in the beatings or in taking valuables from the three men. Following the beatings, Stokes, who did not want to transport the Pagans, was ordered by the Outlaws leader to ride in the van. Stokes was not told to kill the Pagans and he did not hear anyone else ordered to do so. No additional beatings occurred in the van.

When Almond exited the van, Stokes stated that Kish and Farless were still alive. By the time the three Outlaws drove to an isolated area to deposit Kish and Farless, these men had stopped breathing. Stokes stated that he refused to check Kish and Farless to ensure that they were dead. Stokes never signed his statement, and it is not notarized.

On May 18, 1978, a Florida grand jury indicted Stokes for the first-degree murders of Kish and Farless. Stokes's attorney moved to suppress his statement because Stokes was not afforded the opportunity to consult with his counsel prior to the taking of his statement, his attorney was not present when he made his statement, and the statement was obtained by coercion through implied threats. The state trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to suppress.

At the suppression hearing, Stokes testified that, upon being taken into the interrogation room, the "[f]irst statement I made I told them I wanted to talk to a lawyer about anything I said in their presence," and he "started to get up" to leave the room. R1-14-App.-8, 15. Stokes testified that the officers told him that, if he gave them a statement, then they would protect him and his family because the Outlaws had a contract on Stokes's life. Having known Roop since high school, Stokes trusted him. Stokes testified that he requested a lawyer more than once before Although Sergeant Hager testified at the suppression hearing that Stokes did not request his counsel's presence before he made his statement, Hager did concede that he talked with Stokes for five to ten minutes before the tape recorder was activated and, that, during this time, Stokes expressed concern for his family. Hager testified that he had been in communication with a man who was concerned about the safety of the Stokes family and was interested in making arrangements to secure them. Hager stated that he communicated this information to Stokes during their conversation before the tape recorder was activated.

                the officers began to record the interview, the transcript of which evidences Miranda warnings.   Although Stokes testified that he wanted to talk to his lawyer, he allowed the interview because "I was scared that if I didn't go along with them that possibly--I wasn't too much worried about myself.   I was worried about my family." 3  Id. at 10.   Stokes testified that he would not have given the statement if the officers had not mentioned possible retribution by the Outlaws to his family
                

Hager testified that he knew that Stokes was brought to the interrogation room directly from his initial appearance, and yet he did not ask Stokes if he had or wanted an attorney. Additionally, Hager did not inform the Orange County State Attorney's Office that he intended to question Stokes. Although there was no subsequent written ruling by the state trial court on Stokes's suppression motion, his statement was entered into evidence and played for the jury at his trial, which commenced on August 8, 1978. 4

The excerpts from the trial transcript in the record contain the testimony of one of the officers who interrogated Stokes following his initial appearance. 5 The officer concedes that not only did the officers converse with Stokes before the taping began, but also that a portion of the interrogation was not taped because the tape had not been turned to the other side. The apparent testimony of Steven Almond, the survivor of the three Pagans who were beaten, describes his being hit in the back of the head by a rifle butt, when he entered the structure where Kish and Farless were tied, and the subsequent beatings. 6 He identified Stokes as being present and hitting the three men in the back of the head with a rifle butt. When he exited the van, Almond testified that Farless was still alive, but that he could elicit no response from Kish. Almond did not see Kish and Farless again.

The jury convicted Stokes, and subsequently recommended life imprisonment. The trial judge rejected this recommendation and imposed two death sentences on Stokes. On direct appeal, Stokes argued that his statement used at trial was an involuntary confession. In affirming the On January 25, 1984, Stokes filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal district court for the Middle District of Florida. His petition asserted that his statement was introduced against him at trial in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. After requiring respondents to answer Stokes's petition, the district court referred the case to a magistrate.

                convictions, the Florida Supreme Court found that the confession "was the product of a knowing and voluntary waiver" and that "[t]here was no atmosphere of coercion surrounding his confession."  Stokes v. State, 403 So.2d 377, 378 (Fla.1981) (per curiam).   The Florida Supreme Court, however, vacated Stokes's death sentences and instructed the trial court to resentence him to life imprisonment without parole for twenty-five years on each count. 7  Id.
                

On March 31, 1986, the magistrate entered his report and recommendation that Stokes's petition be denied. The magistrate found that the two grounds Stokes raised for relief, that his confession was obtained after he invoked his right to counsel and that his confession resulted from psychological coercion,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
168 cases
  • Skaggs v. Parker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • July 22, 1998
    ...the police only through counsel.'"), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1036, 113 S.Ct. 820, 121 L.Ed.2d 692 (1992); but see Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1579 (11th Cir.1992) (finding parties' dispute concerning defendant's request for counsel immaterial to issue regarding Sixth Amendment right......
  • Jefferson v. GDCP Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • October 17, 2019
    ...(6), (7), individually and in concert, just as the Supreme Court directed on remand and as we’ve done before. See Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1573-74 (11th Cir. 1992) ; Wesley v. Alabama, 488 F.2d 30, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1974) ; Lane v. Henderson, 480 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir. 1973).As f......
  • Vines v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • August 17, 1994
    ...has arrived at an independent conclusion concerning the portions to which objections have been made. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir.1992); see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1) (When a party timely has filed written objections to a magistrate judge's report, "[a] judge of the co......
  • Waldrop v. Thigpen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • June 9, 1994
    ...S.Ct. 2292, 2298, 81 L.Ed.2d 146, 155 (1984)); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir.1992). Moreover, another distinction between the Fifth and Sixth Amendment is that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "off......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...when prosecutor’s closing argument prompted jury to infer guilt and trial court attempt to cure was ineffective); Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1572-74 & n.8 (11th Cir. 1992) (presumption of correctness overcome when state court’s factual f‌indings not fairly supported by record). 29......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT