Sweeney v. Graham

• Decision Date: 14 April 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action PWG-19-1289
• Parties: JEREMIAH ANTOINE SWEENEY, Petitioner, v. RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

JEREMIAH ANTOINE SWEENEY, Petitioner, v. RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents.

Civil Action No. PWG-19-1289

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 14, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PAUL W. GRIMM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2011 conviction in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. ECF No. 1. Respondents contend that Sweeney's Petition should be dismissed because it lacks merit. ECF No. 6. No hearing is necessary to resolve the matter. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021); see also Fisher v Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall deny the Petition. The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

BACKGROUND

Sweeney was convicted following a jury trial held in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, on June 20 2011 through June 24, 2011. ECF No. 6-1 at 6; ECF No. 1 at 201204.^[1] Sweeney was convicted of one count of second degree murder, one count of attempted second degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and four counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a violent offense. Id. After the Circuit Court merged certain offenses, Sweeney was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of life plus thirty years' imprisonment. ECF No. 6-1 at 15.

Sweeney filed a direct appeal with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed his sentence and conviction on October 8, 2013. ECF No. 6-1 at 42-65; ECF No. 6-1 at 88-109. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals subsequently denied Sweeney's petition for certiorari on February 4, 2014. ECF No. 6-1 at 18.

On March 11, 2014 and March 26, 2014, Sweeney filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief. ECF 6-1 at 110-113, 114-120. Sweeney's appointed counsel later filed a supplemental application and a second supplemental application for postconviction relief. ECF No. 6-1 at 120163 164-175. Sweeney's trial counsel, Justin Nunzio, testified at a post-conviction evidentiary hearing on December 5, 2016. ECF 1 at 41-154. The Circuit Court issued a written opinion on August 11, 2017 denying Sweeney's application for postconviction relief. ECF No. 6-1 at 176187. Sweeney filed an application for leave to appeal with the Court of Special Appeals on September 8, 2017, which was denied in a per curiam opinion on April 3, 2018. ECF No. 6-1, at 188-214; 215-217. The Court of Appeals denied his petition for a writ of certiorari on June 6, 2018. ECF No. 6-1 at 22.

Sweeney filed his § 2254 Petition with this Court on May 1, 2019. ECF No. 1.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An application for writ of habeas corpus may be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”) (citations omitted). The federal habeas statute at 28 U.S.C. § 2254 sets forth a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings.” Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333 n.7 (1997); see also Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447 (2005). The standard is “difficult to meet, ” and requires courts to give state-court decisions the benefit of the doubt. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (citations omitted); see also White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419-20 (2014) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011) (“[A] state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”)).

A federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the state's adjudication on the merits: 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 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). A state adjudication is contrary to clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) where the state court 1) “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law, ” or 2) “confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to [the Supreme Court].” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000). Under the “unreasonable application” analysis under 2254(d)(1), a “state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101 (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). Thus, “an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.” Id.

Further under § 2254(d)(2), “a state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.” Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010). “[E]ven if reasonable minds reviewing the record might disagree about the finding in question, ” a federal habeas court may not conclude that the state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Id. “[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because [it] concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant statecourt decision applied established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S 766, 773 (2010).

The habeas statute provides that “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct, ” and the petitioner bears “the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). “Where the state court conducted an evidentiary hearing and explained its reasoning with some care, it should be particularly difficult to establish clear and convincing evidence of error on the state court's part.” Sharpe v. Bell, 593 F.3d 372, 378 (4th Cir. 2010). This is especially true where state courts have “resolved issues like witness credibility, which are ‘factual determinations' for purposes of Section 2254(e)(1).” Id. at 379.

DISCUSSION

Sweeney contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel “because his trial lawyer did not object to the court's failure to hold a hearing to which Petitioner had a right after the court learned that Juror Number Four had visited the alleged crime scene in violation of the court's written instruction and then had discussed his observations with the other jurors.” ECF No. 1 at 9. Sweeney argues that he was entitled to a presumption of prejudice that the jurors on his panel were biased, and the trial court failed to act in accordance with clearly established law.

Thus Sweeney argues, his counsel was ineffective when he failed to insist on the trial court conducting voir dire of the entire jury panel. ECF No. 1 at 12-25. Respondents contend that Sweeney's claim does not meet the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, (1984). ECF No. 6.

On June 24, 2011, after the close of evidence and the jury had retired to begin deliberations, the trial judge received a note at approximately 11:13 a.m.: Juror Number 4 went to the crime scene yesterday to walk through the scene and couple of witnesses were there. Is this okay? There was no interaction.

ECF No. 1 at 187. The trial judge called counsel and Juror Number 4 to the bench. Juror Number 4 was questioned about his trip to the crime scene, to which he responded “I just got out and went by the scene, just basically the crime scene, Your Honor. I just wanted to get a visual because I know-I see topographical views all the time and I know that that does not give an accurate- well, there's a better way to get an accurate view, which is to see a visual, an actual visual. And that's all I did. I spoke to no one. As a matter of fact, I spoke to no one and no one saw me. But I did see a couple of witnesses that were, you know, that were there.” Id. at 188. When asked by the trial judge if the other jurors knew he went to the crime scene, Juror Number 4 responded, “They do. But they stopped me, too, because they thought that I should stop talking and I present what I just said to you all.” Id.

The trial judge, Sweeney's counsel, and counsel for the state proceeded to discuss the appropriate remedy. Id at 189-193. Sweeney's counsel advised the trial judge that he provided three options to Sweeney and it was Sweeney's preference for the entire jury to be transported to the crime scene. Id. at 191. Before the trial court took a recess to determine whether a trip to the crime scene was feasible, Juror Number 4 was instructed by the trial judge not to discuss anything that happened during his tour of the crime scene. Id. at 193. The jury was excused and was permitted to remain together in the jury lounge. Id. at 193. One hour and sixteen minutes later, the trial judge and counsel reconvened to discuss the fact that transporting the jury to the crime scene was not a viable option. Id. at 194. Sweeney advised the trial judge that he was agreeable to excusing Juror...