Stuckey v. Jones

Decision Date27 December 2016
Docket NumberCASE NO. 4:14cv45–RH/CAS
Citation226 F.Supp.3d 1298
Parties Ronney STUCKEY, Petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

226 F.Supp.3d 1298

Ronney STUCKEY, Petitioner,
v.
Julie L. JONES, Respondent.

CASE NO. 4:14cv45–RH/CAS

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, TALLAHASSEE DIVISION .

Filed December 27, 2016


226 F.Supp.3d 1300

Crystal Yvette McBee, The Frusciante Law Firm, Sunrise, FL, for Petitioner.

Joshua Ryan Heller, Social Security Administration, Trisha Meggs Pate, Attorney General State, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the court on the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, ECF No. 21, and the objections, ECF No. 26. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the court's opinion, except on the issue of a certificate of appealability.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to "issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." See Miller–El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 335–38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) ; Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483–84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) ; Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983) ; see also Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 402–13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack :

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration that, under Barefoot , includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were " ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’ "

529 U.S. at 483–84, 120 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Barefoot , 463 U.S. at 893 n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383 ). Further, in order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, a petitioner must show, "at least, that jurists of

226 F.Supp.3d 1301

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

The petitioner has made the required showing for a single issue. This order grants a certificate on that issue and denies a certificate on all other issues.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation is accepted.

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice."

3. A certificate of appealability is granted only on this issue: whether the petitioner is entitled to relief on the ground that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to accurately advise the petitioner of the time he would serve if he accepted the state's plea offer of a 12–year sentence. A certificate is denied on all other issues.

4. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY § 2254 PETITION

Charles A. Stampelos, United States Magistrate Judge

RONNEY STUCKEY, Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, Secretary, Department of Corrections,* Respondent.

On January 30, 2014, Petitioner Ronney Stuckey, represented by counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner also filed a supporting memorandum. ECF No. 4. After direction by this Court, ECF No. 5, Petitioner filed an amended § 2254 petition, ECF No. 6. On December 11, 2014, Respondent filed an answer, with exhibits. ECF No. 18. Petitioner has not filed a reply, although given the opportunity to do so. See ECF No. 17; see also ECF Nos. 8, 10, 12, 13, 15.

The matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 72.2(B). After careful consideration of all issues raised, the undersigned has determined that no evidentiary hearing is required for disposition of this case. See Rule 8(a), R. Gov. § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts. For the reasons stated herein, the pleadings and attachments before the Court show that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief, and this § 2254 petition should be denied.

Background and Procedural History

By amended information filed April 17, 2006, in case number 2005–CF–2325, in the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, the State of Florida charged Petitioner, Ronney Stuckey, with two counts: (1) sexual battery on a child under 12 years of age by a defendant 18 years of age or older, a capital felony, in violation of section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes, in connection with events that occurred from 1995 to 1997; and (2) sexual battery by a familial or custodial authority, a first degree felony, in violation of section 794.011(8)(b), Florida Statutes, in connection with events that occurred from 1998 to 2002. Ex. C at 2.1 See id. at 1 (original information, filed

226 F.Supp.3d 1302

July 21, 2005). Stuckey proceeded to a jury trial on April 19, 2006, before Judge Jonathan Sjostrom. Ex. E (trial transcript). Stuckey testified during the trial. Id. at 153–201. The jury found him guilty as charged. Id. at 248–50; Ex. C at 48. At the conclusion of the trial, the court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to life in prison on Count 1 and 30 years in prison on Count 2, to run concurrently, with no parole eligibility. Ex. C at 51–61. On August 13, 2007, the court rendered an amended judgment and sentence, imposing a life sentence with the possibility of parole on Count 1 and a concurrent sentence of 30 years in prison on Count 2. Ex. C at 102–12. On March 12, 2008, the court again rendered an amended judgment and sentence, imposing a sentence of 30 years in prison on Count 2, with credit for 37 days time served. Ex. C at 114–21.

Stuckey appealed his conviction and sentence to the First District Court of Appeal (DCA), assigned case number 1D06–2611. Ex. I (Initial Brief); Ex. J (Answer Brief); Ex. K (Reply Brief). On July 23, 2009, the First DCA affirmed the case per curiam without a written opinion. Ex. L; Stuckey v. State , 13 So.3d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The mandate issued August 10, 2009. Ex. M.

On October 18, 2010, through counsel, Stuckey filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the state trial court and raised eight claims. Ex. O at 1–19. By order on April 4, 2011, the state post-conviction court, Judge Josefina Tamayo, struck two of the claims as legally insufficient, with leave to amend. Ex. O at 20–21. On May 4, 2011, Stuckey's counsel filed an amended motion. Ex. O at 22–24. The state post-conviction court, Judge Mark E. Walker, held an evidentiary hearing on June 1, 2012, with argument on June 29, 2012. Ex. O at 42–259. On July 2, 2012, Judge Walker rendered an order denying the Rule 3.850 motion for the reasons stated on the record. Ex. O at 34–35.

Stuckey, through counsel, appealed to the First DCA and filed an initial brief in case number 1D12–3682. Ex. P. The State filed an answer brief. Ex. Q. On November 12, 2013, the First DCA per curiam affirmed the appeal without a written opinion. Ex. R; Stuckey v. State , 129 So.3d 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (table). Stuckey filed a motion for rehearing, Ex. S, which the First DCA denied by order on January 10, 2014, Ex. T. The mandate issued January 28, 2014. Ex. U.

As indicated above, Stuckey filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court on January 30, 2014. ECF No. 1. He subsequently filed an amended § 2254 petition. ECF No. 6. He raises five grounds, including claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC):

(1) IAC—Trial counsel failed to prepare the case for trial, failed to prepare Stuckey to testify, and failed to inform Stuckey regarding the actual time he would serve if he accepted the State's plea offer. Id. at 6–12.

(2) IAC—Trial counsel "failed to effectively cross-examine one of the State's key witnesses whose testimony was apparently fabricated." Id. at 13; seeid. at 13–16.

(3) Trial Court Error and IAC—"The prosecutor committed fundamental error during his closing argument (shifting the burden of proof by telling the jury that Petitioner Stuckey had to present a defense, telling the jury that their oaths required a guilty verdict, and telling the jury to return a verdict that ‘speaks the truth[’) ]; Counsel
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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