Taylor v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 19 May 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:12-cv-444-BJD-MCR
• Parties: STEVEN RICHARD TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

STEVEN RICHARD TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.

Case No. 3:12-cv-444-BJD-MCR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

May 19, 2021

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Through counsel, Petitioner Steven Richard Taylor, a death-sentenced inmate, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Petition) (Doc. 1). Petitioner challenges his state court (Duval County) conviction for murder in the first degree, burglary of a dwelling and sexual battery. He filed a Memorandum of Law (Memorandum) (Doc. 2). Respondents filed a Response Opposing Habeas Petition (Response) (Doc. 13).¹Respondents filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Notice) (Doc. 16). Petitioner filed a Reply to Response Opposing Habeas Petition (Reply) (Doc. 18). See Order (Doc. 11). Petitioner also filed a Supplement to Memorandum of Law (Doc. 53), and Respondents filed a Response Brief to Petitioner's Supplement to Memorandum of Law (Doc. 54).

Petitioner raises four grounds in the Petition: (1) "[t]he state withheld evidence which was material and exculpatory in nature and/or presented false evidence in violation of Mr. Taylor's constitutional rights[;]" (2) "Mr. Taylor was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase of the capital proceedings, in violation of the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution[;]" (3) "Mr. Taylor was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his capital trial, in violation of his rights to due process and equal protection under the United States Constitution, as well as his rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments[;] and (4) "[t]he court erred in denying Mr. Taylor's motion to suppress statements made to a police officer while in custody and after Mr. Taylor had invoked his rights to counsel in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution." Petition at 31, 44, 66, 74 (capitalization and footnote omitted). Respondents calculate the Petition is timely. Response at 26-29.

II. EVIDENTIARY HEARING

"In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to establish the need for an evidentiary hearing." Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 834 F.3d 1299, 1318 (11th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2245 (2017). To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must allege "facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief." Martin v. United States, 949 F.3d 662, 670 (11th Cir.) (quoting Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2002)) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 357 (2020). See Chavez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir. 2011) (opining a petitioner bears the burden of establishing the need for an evidentiary hearing with more than speculative and inconcrete claims of need), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1120 (2012); Dickson v. Wainwright, 683 F.2d 348, 351 (11th Cir. 1982) (same).

If the allegations are contradicted by the record, patently frivolous, or based upon unsupported generalizations, the court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Martin, 949 F.3d at 670 (quotation and citation omitted). In this case, the pertinent facts are fully developed in this record or the record otherwise precludes habeas relief;² therefore, the Court can"adequately assess [Petitioner's] claim[s] without further factual development," Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1034 (2004). Petitioner has not met his burden as the record refutes the asserted factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief. Therefore, the Court finds Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007).

III. HABEAS REVIEW

The Eleventh Circuit recently opined that federal courts are authorized to grant habeas relief to a state prisoner "only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Lee v. GDCP Warden, 987 F.3d 1007, 1017 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Further, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), there is a very deferential framework, limiting the power of federal courts to grant relief if a state court denied a claim on its merits. Sealey v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 954 F.3d 1338, 1354 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted) (acknowledging the deferential framework of AEDPA for evaluating issues previously decided in state court), cert. denied, 2021 WL 1240954 (U.S. Apr. 5, 2021); Shoop v. Hill, 139 S. Ct. 504, 506 (2019) (per curiam) (recognizing AEDPA imposes "important limitations on the power of federal courts to overturn the judgments of state courts in criminal cases").

Indeed, relief is limited to occasions where the state court's decision:

"was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." A state court's decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the state court either reaches a conclusion opposite to the Supreme Court of the United States on a question of law or reaches a different outcome than the Supreme Court in a case with "materially indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). "Under the 'unreasonable application' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle" from Supreme Court precedents "but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id. at 413, 120 S. Ct. 1495.

Lee, 987 F.3d at 1017-18.

This high hurdle is not easily surmounted; if the state court applied clearly established federal law to reasonably determined facts when determining a claim on its merits, "a federal habeas court may not disturb the state court's decision unless its error lies 'beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.'" Shinn v. Kayer, 141 S. Ct. 517, 520 (2020) (per curiam) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011)). Also, a state court's finding of fact, whether a state trial court or appellate court, is entitled to apresumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). "The state court's factual determinations are presumed correct, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary." Sealey, 954 F.3d at 1354 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). This presumption of correctness, however, applies only to findings of fact, not mixed determinations of law and fact. Brannan v. GDCP Warden, 541 F. App'x 901, 903-904 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (recognizing the distinction between a pure question of fact from a mixed question of law and fact), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 906 (2014). Furthermore, the second prong of § 2254(d), requires this Court to "accord the state trial court [determination of the facts] substantial deference." Dallas v. Warden, 964 F.3d 1285, 1302 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305, 314 (2015)), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 27, 2021) (No. 20-7589). As such, a federal district court may not supersede a state court's determination simply because reasonable minds may disagree about the finding. Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

IV. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are "governed by the familiar two-part Strickland[v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)] standard." Knight v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 958 F.3d 1035, 1038 (11th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 2021 WL 1240957 (U.S. Apr. 5, 2021). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must successfully show his counsel "made errors so serious that counsel was notfunctioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment" as well as show "the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant, depriving him of a 'fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.'" Raheem v. GDCP Warden, No. 16-12866, 2021 WL 1605939, at *6 (11th Cir. Apr. 26, 2021) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). As both components under Strickland must be met, failure to meet either prong is fatal to the claim. Raheem, 2021 WL 2605939, at *6 (citation omitted).

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit warns:

because "[t]he standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both 'highly deferential,' . . . when the two apply in tandem, review is 'doubly' so. Harrington [v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011)] (internal citations and quotation omitted). Thus, under § 2254(d), "the question is not whether counsel's actions were reasonable. The question is whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland's deferential standard." Id.

Tuomi v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 980 F.3d 787, 795 (11th Cir. 2020) cert. denied, 2021 WL 1074184 (U.S. Mar. 22, 2021).

V. THE OFFENSES

The Florida Supreme Court (FSC), in its opinion addressing Petitioner's direct appeal, detailed the facts of the case. Taylor v. State, 630 So. 2d 1038, 1039-41 (Fla. 1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 832 (1994). For context, the facts will be repeated here:

The record reflects that on September 15, 1990, at about 11:30 p.m., the victim, fifty-nine-year-oldAlice Vest, returned to her mobile home in Jacksonville after spending the evening with a friend. Earlier that evening, the appellant, Steven Richard Taylor, and two friends were out driving and listening to the radio. Around midnight, the driver of the car dropped off Taylor and his friend, who was later to become his accomplice, near the victim's neighborhood.

Sometime in the early morning hours of September 16, a Ford Ranchero was stolen from a residence near the place where Taylor had been dropped off. At about 4:30 a.m., after the vehicle had been stolen, a

...