Thomas v. Carroll
| Citation | 424 F.Supp.2d 738 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | Civ.A. No. 04-159-JJF. |
| Parties | Andre R. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. Thomas L. CARROLL, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Andre R. Thomas, Pro se Petitioner.
Thomas E. Brown, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for Respondent.
Pending before the Court is an Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner, Andre R. Thomas (D.I. 1; 6). For the reasons discussed, the Court will dismiss the Petition and deny the relief requested.
While incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional Center on July 25, 2002, Petitioner struck a corrections officer three times. As a result, Petitioner was charged with assault in a detention center. Petitioner was assigned a Public Defender, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for August 28, 2002. At the request of Petitioner's counsel, the preliminary hearing was re-scheduled to September 12, 2002. In the interim, the grand jury indicted Petitioner, and the re-scheduled preliminary hearing was cancelled.
On October 1, 2002, Petitioner's counsel filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that Petitioner wished to proceed pro se. On October 28, 2002, Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty, and the Delaware Superior Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw. The Superior Court also denied Petitioner's pro se motions for a preliminary hearing and for the appointment of standby counsel.
The Delaware Superior Court subsequently appointed conflict counsel for Petitioner, but then granted another request by Petitioner for leave to proceed pro se. In January 2003, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Delaware Superior Court asking for advice on how to subpoena witnesses and again requesting stand-by counsel. At the start of the April 8, 2003 trial, but prior to the selection of the jury, the Superior Court asked Petitioner if he recalled his letter request for standby counsel. Petitioner replied that he did not recall that request. The Superior Court then asked Petitioner if he was ready to proceed pro se, and Petitioner responded affirmatively. Petitioner then asked the Superior Court to subpoena thirteen inmates and several corrections officers to testify as defense witnesses. Petitioner also requested a copy of his complete prison medical record.
After conducting an extensive colloquy with Petitioner, the Superior Court offered to have three inmates and a corrections officer brought from the prison to testify and to provide Petitioner with his prison medical record. The prosecutor also gave Petitioner a copy of written discovery that had previously been sent to Petitioner's attorney, but which Petitioner claimed he had never seen.
Despite these efforts, Petitioner refused to participate in the proceedings, unless all thirteen witnesses he wanted were brought to the trial to testify. After another extensive colloquy with Petitioner, the Superior Court decided to continue with the trial in Petitioner's absence, but ordered Petitioner to remain in the courthouse during the trial. After the jury was selected, the Superior Court asked Petitioner to return to the courtroom to determine how he wished to proceed. Petitioner refused to enter the courtroom. Before the start of trial, the Superior Court again asked Petitioner to return to the courtroom. Petitioner returned to the courtroom, but stated that he still did not wish to participate in his trial.
The trial was conducted in Petitioner's absence, and Petitioner was convicted of the charge. Pursuant to 11 Del. C. Ann. § 4214(a), Petitioner was sentenced as an habitual offender to eight years imprisonment and the forfeiture of good time credits. Petitioner was present at the sentencing hearing.
Petitioner filed a pro se appeal, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. Thomas v. State, 842 A.2d 1244 (Table), 2004 WL 300444 (Del. Feb. 9, 2004). Petitioner did not file any post-conviction motions in the state courts.
Petitioner timely filed the instant Petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the grounds that: (1) his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the Superior Court's failure to appoint standby counsel after deciding to proceed with his trial in absentia; (2) his due process rights were violated because he was not present during jury selection, the trial, and the return of the jury's verdict; (3) his due process rights were violated by the Superior Court's refusal to subpoena the witnesses he requested and the Superior Court's decision denying Petitioner access to the victim's work record; and (4) his due process rights were violated when the prosecution proceeded by way of indictment after a preliminary hearing had started. Respondents have filed a Response to the Petition (D.I. 9) requesting the Court to dismiss the Petition on the grounds that Petitioner's claims are either not cognizable or do not warrant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Absent exceptional circumstances, a federal court cannot grant federal habeas relief unless the petitioner has exhausted all means of available relief under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-44, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). The exhaustion requirement is based on principles of comity, requiring a petitioner to give "state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 844-45, 119 S.Ct. 1728; Werts v. Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178, 192 (3d Cir.2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must demonstrate that he "fairly presented" his claim to the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir.1997) (citations omitted); Coverdale v. Snyder, 2000 WL 1897290, at *2 (D.Del. Dec.22, 2000). A claim is "fairly presented" if the petitioner has presented the claim's factual and legal basis to the state courts in a manner that puts them on notice that a federal claim is being asserted. Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707, 714 (3d Cir.2004)(citing McCandless v. Vaughn, 172 F.3d 255, 261 (3d Cir.1999)).
If a state court adjudicates a federal habeas claim on the merits, federal habeas relief cannot be granted unless 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 the state court's decision was an unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence adduced in the trial. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2001). For the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a state court adjudicates a claim on the merits if its "decision finally resolv[es] the parties' claims, with res judicata effect, [and] is based on the substance of the claim advanced, rather than on a procedural, or other ground." Rompilla v. Horn, 355 F.3d 233, 247 (3d Cir.2004)(internal citations omitted), reed on other grounds by Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005).
A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if the state court "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's] cases," Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), or if it "decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 687, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002). A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if the state court "correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner's case." Williams, 529 U.S. at 407-08, 120 S.Ct. 1495.
When analyzing claims under the AEDPA, the state court's factual determinations are presumed to be correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). This presumption of correctness applies to both explicit and implicit findings of fact, Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280, 286 (3d Cir.2000), and is only rebuttable if the petitioner presents clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 341, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).
Petitioner contends that the Superior Court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to appoint stand-by counsel for Petitioner after deciding to proceed with his trial in absentia. The Delaware Supreme Court denied Petitioner's claim on the merits,1 and therefore, the Court may only grant habeas relief if it determines that the Delaware Supreme Court's decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly settled federal law as established by the Supreme Court.2 See Rompilla, 355 F.3d at 247; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Although an accused has the right to counsel, he also has the right to represent himself, if the choice is made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464-65, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). However, an accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial