ORDER AND OPINION
Petitioner Clark D. Thomas is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He currently is housed at Allendale Correctional Institution in Fairfax, South Carolina. On November 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is governed by the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), which became effective on April 24, 1996.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner was arrested after restraining his spouse (the "victim") in a motel room overnight, during which time he repeatedly beat her, bound her with duct tape, shackled her to a chair, and tased her multiple times. At trial, Petitioner contended the conduct was consensual. On July 10, 2008, Petitioner was found guilty of criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature and kidnaping. ECF No. 34-2, 300-02. Petitioner was sentenced to incarceration for 10 years on the charge of domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature and 20 years on the charge of kidnaping, to be served concurrently. Id. at 328-29. On or about April 5, 2010, counsel from the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense filed on Petitioner's behalf an Anders1 brief raising the following issue on appeal:
Was appellant denied his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when the State refused to call the case for trial until July 10, 2008, more than two years after arrest and 22 months after the filing of a speedy trial motion?
ECF No. 34-4, 4.
Petitioner filed a pro se brief on December 15, 2010. Petitioner raised the following issues:
I.
Was David tried by a court that lacked subject matter jurisdiction in violation of his rights to due process and a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
II.
In charging the jury, did the trial judge violate David's rights to due process—an impartial jury—and a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
III.
Did assistant solicitor Nathan Williams' prosecutorial misconduct and vindictive prosecution violate David's rights to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure—to due process—an impartial jury—to be free from cruel and unusual punishment—and a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
. . . .
IV.
Did the trial judge fail in her responsibility to safeguard David's rights to due process—the assistance of counsel—equal protection of the laws—and a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
V.
Should the egregious state of affairs during David's trial—Nathan's misconduct—and Michael's deliberate failure to properly preserve the flagrant violation of all David's rights in a contemporaneous objection circumvent aprocedural bar that will prevent David from defending his rights to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure—due process—a speedy trial—a public trial by an impartial jury—to be informed of the charges—to confrontation of adverse witnesses—to present defense witnesses—to compulsory witness testimony—to counsel—to be free from cruel and unusual punishment—to equal protection of the laws—and a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and [F]ourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
VI.
Did the infinite deprivation of all David's rights and liberty interests during his trial meet the sine qua non of the Cumulative Error Doctrine to protect David's rights to due process—equal protection of the law—and a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
VII.
Was the jury's determination that David is guilty of kidnapping and CDVHAN controlled by an error of law—based upon facts unsupported by the evidence—clearly wrong—and in violation of David's rights to due process, equal protection of the law, and a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
ECF No. 34-5, 8-9.
On August 8, 2012, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, in a per curium opinion, dismissed Petitioner's appeal. ECF No. 34-8. The court of appeals issued its remittitur on August 24, 2012. ECF No. 34-10.
Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR) on December 21, 2012. ECF No. 34-2, 338-42. He filed an amended PCR application on August 29, 2014. ECF No. 34-2, 350-403. Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in various respects. Specifically, Petitioner asserted:
a. Defense counsel was ineffective when he deliberately curtailed the duration of Applicant's trial by failing to subject the prosecution's charges of kidnapping and CDVHAN to meaningful adversarial testing in order that his conflict of interest in a timely departure to Costa Rica could be achieved. The result of defense counsel's ineffectiveness was to violate Applicant's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, due process of law, a speedytrial, to be fully heard in his defense by himself or by his counsel or by both, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and South Carolina law.
b. Defense counsel was ineffective when he failed to effectively cross-examine the alleged victim by failing to highlight contradictions in the alleged victim's statements and testimony and failing to impeach victim with evidence of prior behavior and prior statements. The result of defense counsel's ineffectiveness was to violate Applicant's right to due process of law and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and South Carolina law.
c. Defense counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to prosecution's failure to disclose Brady materials consisting of the chain of custody establishing the inadmissibility of State's Exhibits 1-2 and 41-45, and the evidence to impeach the alleged victim consisting of medical records and the prosecution's arrangement enabling the alleged victim to elude convictions for acts of aggression in exchange for her testimony. Defense counsel was also ineffective when he failed to preserve these issues for appellate review. The result of defense counsel's ineffectiveness was to violate Applicant's right to due process of law and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and South Carolina law.
d. Defense counsel was ineffective when he improperly requested that the Court not charge the lesser included offense of criminal domestic violence for the jury to consider. The result of defense counsel's ineffectiveness was to violate Applicant's right to due process of law and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and South Carolina law.
e. Defense counsel was ineffective when he made negative statements regarding the Applicant during trial which were excessive and extreme and could not be reasonably considered to be within his trial strategy. In doing so, defense counsel also was also ineffective in his opening statement and closing argument. The result of defense counsel's ineffectiveness was to violate Applicant's right to due process of law and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and South Carolina law.f. Defense counsel was ineffective when he did not meet with or consider additional witnesses offered by Applicant who would have provided relevant information to assist the jury. Defense counsel was ineffective when he did not allow relevant witnesses to give testimony who attend trial seeking to testify on Applicant's behalf. The result of defense counsel's ineffectiveness was to violate Applicant's right to due process of law, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and South Carolina law.
g. Defense counsel was ineffective when he refused to present character evidence on behalf of the Applicant even though he was aware of multiple witnesses who attended trial seeking to testify on Applicant's behalf. The result of defense counsel's ineffectiveness was to violate Applicant's right to due process of law, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and South Carolina law.
h. Defense counsel was ineffective when he failed to properly object during the State's cross-examination when the prosecutor shifted the burden to Applicant to prove that he was not attempting to kidnap the alleged victim when he was arrested and that Applicant's consensual use of a stun gun during sex was not a malicious assault centered on inflicting bodily injury upon the alleged victim by badgering Applicant and repeatedly asking the same questions and refusing to allow the Applicant to complete his answers. And defense counsel was ineffective when he then failed to rehabilitate Applicant on re-direct. Defense counsel was also ineffective when he failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.
...
