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

• Decision Date: 16 October 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:17-cv-64-J-34JBT
• Parties: LOUIS THORNTON, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

LOUIS THORNTON, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.

Case No. 3:17-cv-64-J-34JBT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

October 16, 2019

ORDER

I. Status

Petitioner Louis Thornton, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action on December 16, 2016,¹ by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Petition; Doc. 1). In the Petition, Thornton challenges a 2011 state court (Duval County, Florida) judgment of conviction for aggravated battery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Thornton raises eight grounds for relief. See Petition at 7-23.² Respondents have submitted a memorandum in opposition to the Petition. See Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Response; Doc. 28) with exhibits (Resp. Ex.). Thornton did not file a reply brief.³ This case is ripe for review.

II. Relevant Procedural History

On February 24, 2010, the State of Florida (State) charged Thornton by way of Information with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (count one), aggravated assault (count two), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count three). Resp. Ex. A at 13-14. Thornton proceeded to a jury trial, with the jury first deciding Thornton's guilt or innocence as to counts one and two and then returning to deliberate over count three. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found him guilty as to counts one and three but not guilty as to count two. Id. at 115-18. As to count one, the jury found that Thornton used a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. Id. at 115. As to count three, however, the jury found that although Thornton legally possessed a firearm, he did not actually possess a firearm during the commission of the offense. Id. at 118. On May 3, 2011, the circuit court adjudicated Thornton to be a habitual felony offender (HFO) and sentenced him to a term of incarceration of sixteen years in prison as to both counts one and three, with each count running concurrently. Id. at 139-45.

Thornton appealed his conviction and sentence to Florida's First District Court of Appeal (First DCA). Id. at 150-51. On December 5, 2011, Thornton, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), in which he challenged his adjudication as a HFO. Resp. Ex. D at 1-15. The circuit court failed to rule on the motion. Resp. Ex. E. Thornton then filed an initial brief with the First DCA in which he argued that (1) the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the standard for constructive possession of a firearm in jointly occupied premises and (2) his HFO adjudication was illegal. Resp. Ex. F. The State filed an answer brief. Resp. Ex. G. On January 22, 2013, the First DCA per curiam affirmedThornton's conviction and sentence without a written opinion, Resp. Ex. H, and issued the Mandate on February 7, 2013. Resp. Ex. I.

On May 7, 2013, Thornton filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (Rule 3.850 Motion). Resp. Ex. J at 1-18. In the Rule 3.850 Motion, Thornton alleged his counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) present evidence; (2) investigate a potential witness; (3) object to a jury instruction; (4) impeach the victim's testimony; (5) impeach a state witness; (6) object to his adjudication as an HFO; and (7) request a jury instruction. Id. at 2-17. On September 14, 2015, the circuit court denied the motion. Id. at 31-46. On January 29, 2016, the First DCA per curiam affirmed the denial without a written opinion, Resp. Ex. M, and issued the Mandate on February 24, 2016. Resp. Ex. N.

On February 22, 2016, Thornton petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction to review the denial of his Rule 3.850 Motion. Resp. Ex. O. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Resp. Ex. P. Thornton again attempted to get the Florida Supreme Court to review the denial of his Rule 3.850 Motion by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in that court on April 1, 2016. Resp. Ex. Q. On May 19, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court entered an order treating the petition for writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandamus and transferring it to the First DCA. Resp. Ex. R. On June 8, 2016, the First DCA per curiam denied the petition without a written opinion. Resp. Ex. S.

On February 12, 2016, Thornton filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the circuit court, in which he argued the evidence presented at his trial did not support hisconvictions. Resp. Ex. T. At the time Respondents filed their Response the circuit court had yet to rule on the petition. Resp. Ex. U.

III. One-Year Limitations Period

This proceeding was timely filed within the one-year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

IV. Evidentiary Hearing

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to establish the need for a federal evidentiary hearing. See Chavez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir. 2011). "In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief." Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007); Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 834 F.3d 1299, 1318-19 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2245 (2017). "It follows that if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing." Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474. The pertinent facts of this case are fully developed in the record before the Court. Because the Court can "adequately assess [Thornton's] claim[s] without further factual development," Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003), an evidentiary hearing will not be conducted.

V. Governing Legal Principles

A. Standard of Review

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) governs a state prisoner's federal petition for habeas corpus. See Ledford v. Warden, Ga.Diagnostic & Classification Prison, 818 F.3d 600, 642 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1432 (2017). "'The purpose of AEDPA is to ensure that federal habeas relief functions as a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, and not as a means of error correction.'" Id. (quoting Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 38 (2011) (quotation marks omitted)). As such, federal habeas review of final state court decisions is "'greatly circumscribed' and 'highly deferential.'" Id. (quoting Hill v. Humphrey, 662 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted)).

The first task of the federal habeas court is to identify the last state court decision, if any, that adjudicated the claim on the merits. See Marshall v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 828 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2016). The state court need not issue a written opinion explaining its rationale in order for the state court's decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011). Where the state court's adjudication on the merits is unaccompanied by an explanation, the United States Supreme Court has instructed:

[T]he federal court should "look through" the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale. It should then presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning.

Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). The presumption may be rebutted by showing that the higher state court's adjudication most likely relied on different grounds than the lower state court's reasoned decision, such as persuasive alternative grounds that were briefed or argued to the higher court or obvious in the record it reviewed. Id. at 1192, 1196.

If the claim was "adjudicated on the merits" in state court, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of the claim unless the state court's decision (1) "was contrary to, or involved anunreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;" or (2) "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); Richter, 562 U.S. at 97-98. The Eleventh Circuit describes the limited scope of federal review pursuant to § 2254 as follows:

First, § 2254(d)(1) provides for federal review for claims of state courts' erroneous legal conclusions. As explained by the Supreme Court in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), § 2254(d)(1) consists of two distinct clauses: a "contrary to" clause and an "unreasonable application" clause. The "contrary to" clause allows for relief only "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Id. at 413, 120 S. Ct. at 1523 (plurality opinion). The "unreasonable application" clause allows for relief only "if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id.

Second, § 2254(d)(2) provides for federal review for claims of state courts' erroneous factual determinations. Section 2254(d)(2) allows federal courts to grant relief only if the state court's denial of the petitioner's claim "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)(2). The Supreme Court has not yet defined § 2254(d)(2)'s "precise relationship" to § 2254(e)(1), which imposes a burden on

...