Petitioner Jerry E. Tuggle, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action on January 6, 2012, by filing a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Petition; Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the Petition, Tuggle challenges a 2010 revocation of conditional release supervision. Respondents have submitted a memorandum in opposition to the Petition. See Florida Parole Commission's Answer to Court's Order to Show Cause (Response; Doc.9) with exhibits (Resp. Ex.). On February 2, 2012, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause and Notice to Petitioner (Doc. 6), admonishing Tuggle regarding his obligations and giving Tuggle a time frame in which to submit a reply. Tuggle submitted a brief inreply. See Reply to Florida Parole Commission's Answer to Order to Show Cause (Reply; Doc. 11). This case is ripe for review.
In September 1989, in Case No. 89-1032, the trial court adjudicated Tuggle guilty and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of ten years for battery of a law enforcement officer, a term of imprisonment of thirty years for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and a term of imprisonment of ten years for evidence tampering, with all such terms to run concurrently with one another.1 Resp. Ex. A. When Tuggle reached his tentative release date on March 26, 2008, the Florida Parole Commission released him from imprisonment on conditional release supervision. Resp. Ex. B. On May 8, 2009, Correctional Probation Senior Officer Benningfield submitted a violation report to the Florida Parole Commission asserting that Tuggle violated the terms of his supervision by using or possessing cocaine and marijuana. Resp. Ex. C, State of Florida Department of Corrections Violation Report. Benningfield described how the violation occurred:
The subject has violated Condition (7) of his Conditional Release, by failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law by committing the criminal offense of: Count 1 - Possession of Cocaine with Intent, and Count II - Possession of Marijuana with Intent, on May 14, 2009, in Marion County, Florida, and as grounds for belief that the offender violated his Conditional Release Supervision, Officer M.G. Benningfield states that the offender was arrested on May 14, 2009, for the said offense by PFC B. Sirolli, of the Ocala Police Department.
According to arrest affidavit #2009-00077735, by the [P]FC B. Sirolli, that on May 14, 2009, he observed [that] a 1987 Chevy pickup truck went west bound [sic] on SW 7th Place, in Ocala, Florida, with the windshield tint, that extended below, the AS/1 line. [U]pon making a traffic stop and writing a warning ticket for the violation[,] [h]e requested a K-9, Officer to do a walk around of the vehicle. The dog alerted on the driver door. A search of the vehicle revealed a purple crown royal bag between the driver's side and center console, in plain sight of the subject. Inside the bag, six (6) separate small plastic bags, containing what appeared to be Marijuana, also discovered [sic] a plastic sandwich bag containing several smaller plastic bags containing white powder substance [sic] appeared to be Cocaine. A field test of both substances resulted in positive results tests for Marijuana and Cocaine.
Id. at 4. The Florida Parole Commission issued a warrant for Tuggle's arrest on May 18, 2009. Id. at 2, Warrant for Retaking Conditional Releasee.
On December 18, 2009, the Florida Parole Commission held a conditional release violation hearing, at which Tuggle was represented by counsel (Mr. Andrew Pozzuto). According to the Florida Parole Commission's Summary of Final Violation Hearing (Hearing Summary; Resp. Ex. D), several witnesses testified. The summary reflects that Officer Brandon Sirolli (the arresting officer with the Ocala Police Department) testified as follows:
After being duly sworn Officer Sirolli testified that while he was patrolling the area of the 2200 block of SW 7th Place, Ocala at approximately 8:00 a.m., he observed releasee driving a 1987 Chevy truck with front window tinting not in compliance with Florida law and executed a stop. While writing a Written Warning[,] he requested that K-9 Officer Gerard King respond to evaluate the truck for narcotics. Officer Sirolli said that the area where the stop took place had been determined to be a high crime, high narcotics area which prompted his request. When Officer King arrived[,] his dog, Kilo, alerted to both the driver and passenger sides of the truck. Releasee was ordered out of the truck and Officer Sirolli conducted a search. He located a purple Crown Royal bag between the driver's seat and center console in clear view of the releasee. Inside the bag were six separate clear plastic bags containing what appeared to be marijuana. The officer then discovered a plastic sandwich bag that held several smaller clear plastic bags in which was what appeared to be powder cocaine. Both substances were field tested and proved positive as described. The consistency of the packaging of the suspected narcotics led the officer to believe the applicant intended to distribute the narcotics.
During his continued search of the truck[,] Officer Sirolli found a small clear plastic bag in the center console inside of which was a small blue pill crushed into small pieces. The releasee identified it as Viagra which was his for personal use. The officer produced all the illegal substance[s] found as well as the bags. He then submitted a copy of an FDLE [(Florida Department of Law Enforcement)] laboratory report which confirmed the cocaine with a weight of 3.3 grams. The attorney for the releasee accepted the evidence without examination.
While at the jail[,] releasee said to the officer that he knew who the drugs belonged to, but he wanted to talk to a drug agent andhave his charges altered. The officer said his charges would not be altered and the conversation ended.
Questioning by Attorney Pozzuto: Officer Sirolli had the plastic bags examined for finger prints, but no usable prints were revealed. Officer Sirolli read releasee his Miranda rights. Mr. Tuggle made no further statements after he volunteered his ownership of the Viagra pill at the scene of his arrest.
Id. at 6 (emphasis and indentation deleted). According to the Hearing Summary, Officer Gerard King (the K-9 Officer) testified as follows:
After being duly sworn[,] Officer King said that he was at the police station when he received Officer Sirolli's request to do a drug search of releasee's truck. The dog alerted to both sides of the truck. Officer King stood by while the search was conducted and watched releasee. He did not watch the actual search. Officer Sirolli described what he had found to Officer King. He did not see the recovered narcotics. He does not recall releasee making any statements.
Attorney Puzzuto had no questions for the witness.
Id. at 7. The hearing officer summarized the testimony of Annie Keys (Tuggle's mother, the owner of the Chevy truck):
After being duly sworn[,] Ms. Keys said she was the owner of the Chevy truck. (This fact was confirmed by DAVID.)[2] Everyone drives her truck[:] her nephew, her son, his fiancee. She knows nothing about any drugs. Someone else drove the truck the day before. The releasee took it to go to work between 6:30 and 7:00 that morning.
Id. Geneva Palmer (Tuggle's fiancee) testified that six to seven different people drive the truck. Id. According to the Hearing Summary, Tuggle testified on his own behalf as follows:
After being duly sworn[,] [Tuggle] said that he borrowed his mother's truck to drive to Krystal for some breakfast on the way to work. He usually gets a ride from Andre Green or from his fiancee. He didn't say anything to the officer at the jail. The officer came to him and asked him if he would like to work out a deal. He told the officer that he didn't know anything.
Since he got out of prison last year he has been trying to do right, trying to stay employed. He has paid his money and had no dirty urines. He was going to the Krystal not selling drugs. He never saw the bag.
Id. Tuggle's counsel summarized the case.
[I]t has been established that between 6 and 7 people use the truck belonging to Ms. Keys. It is not normal for someone borrowing a car to examine its interior. The drugs could have belonged to anyone. The judge suppressed the evidence and the State filed a nolle prosequi as a result. With this weak a case how can the Commission send this man back to prison for over 11 years?
Id. at 7-8. Counsel submitted two exhibits for the hearing officer's consideration: the court's order granting Tuggle's motion to suppress,3 and the court's announcement of nolle prosequi of the criminal charges (Case No. 2009-1998-CF-A-Z, possession of cocainewith intent to sell or deliver and possession of cannabis with intent to sell) based on suppression of narcotics found in the vehicle.4 Id. at 6. The hearing examiner found Tuggle guilty of willfully violating substantial conditions of supervision and recommended that the Commission revoke his supervision. Id. at 4, 8-9. On February 2, 2010, the Commission accepted the hearing examiner's factual findings and revoked Tuggle's supervision. Resp. Ex. E, Revocation of Conditional Release Order. In its order, the Commission found that Tuggle willfully violated substantial conditions of his conditional release as follows:
Violated Condition 4(b) by using or possessing narcotics, drugs or marijuana, unless prescribed by a physician, in that on or about May 14, 2009, he did use and/or possess cocaine, not prescribed by a physician.
Violated Condition 4(b) by using or possessing narcotics, drugs or marijuana, unless prescribed by a physician, in that on or about May 14, 2009, he did
...
