Watson v. Ford
| Decision Date | 12 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-1131,12-1131 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY C. WATSON, Petitioner, v. TAMMY FORD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Before the Court is the May 23, 2012 pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("the Petition") filed by Petitioner, Timothy C. Watson ("Petitioner" or "Watson"), inmate number 221443, who is housed at the Whiteville Correctional Facility ("WCF") in Whiteville, Tennessee, against Respondent, Tammy Ford, Warden of WCF. In addition, the Court will consider other motions pending in this action.
A Dyer County grand jury indicted Watson in October of 2005 for two counts of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine. (D.E. 20-1 at PageID 209-210.)1 Petitioner was initially
represented by Assistant Public Defender Timothy Boxx. (Id. at PageID 211.) Upon Watson's request, Boxx was allowed to withdraw from representation because it was anticipated that the Public Defender's Office might be called as a witness against Petitioner in another case. (D.E. 20-10 at PageID 886.) Attorney Martin Howie became the attorney of record. (D.E. 20-1 at PageID 288.) Howie represented Watson until shortly before trial, when the client lost confidence in his representation. (D.E. 20-1 at PageID 285.) Petitioner requested leave from the court to proceed pro se, however, the reasons for this change are somewhat disputed. In one version, Watson, in multiple communications with the trial court, stated that, although he had not wished to represent himself, he felt that he had no other alternative due to an alleged lack of diligence and communication with Howie and counsel's purported drug use. (D.E. 2 at PageID 11-12; D.E. 20-1 at PageID 285-87.) However, in an order denying Watson's petition for post-conviction relief, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner could not get along with any of his attorneys and "insisted upon representing himself," despite receiving warnings from the trial court about the perils of self-representation. (See, e.g., D.E. 20-1 at PageID 314.)
Regardless of the reason, the trial court granted Petitioner's request to proceed pro se and reappointed Howie as elbow counsel to assist during trial.2 (See id. at PageID 288.) At trial, Petitioner attempted to present three alibi witnesses to testify that he was in Indiana at the time of the offenses, however, that effort was disallowed due to Watson's failure to comply withTennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, which governs disclosure of alibi witnesses. (See D.E. 20-5 at PageID 651-52.) Thus, the defense offered no proof at trial. (Id. at PageID 652-53.) The jury found Watson guilty of Count Two on January 15, 2009. (Id. at PageID 707.)
On January 22, 2009, Petitioner sent a letter to the trial court asking for a new attorney and alleging six instances of ineffective assistance of counsel against Howie. (D.E. 20-10 at PageID 884-85.) On February 5, 2009, the trial court denied the request and instructed Howie to proceed with "the sentencing hearing, any motion for new trial, and any appeal, if necessary." (D.E. 20-1 at PageID 288-89.) On February 9, 2009, Watson wrote another letter to the trial court stating that he had no choice but to respect the ruling, however, he refuted the trial court's statement that he had "insisted on representing himself." (Id. at PageID 291.) Instead, Petitioner stated, "if you'll [the trial court] recall I said: 'I don't want to represent myself I feel that I have to represent myself.'" (Id.)
Retained attorney Bede Anyanwu represented Watson at the sentencing hearing on April 21, 2009. The attorney called the mother of Watson's son as a witness and requested that, due to his client's mental and emotional difficulties, he be sent to a mental health facility instead of prison. (D.E. 20-7 at PageID 771, 784-800.) Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years as a Range II, multiple offender. (Id. at PageID 804.)
On April 24, 2009, Watson wrote another letter to the trial court stating that Anyanwu had "run off with [his] money" and would neither "represent [him] in a motion for new trial" nor "return [his] case file." (D.E. 20-1 at PageID 217.) Petitioner asked the court to appoint new counsel and requested "possibly . . . an extension to allow [new] counsel time to prepare." (Id.) Although the technical record contains this letter, there is nothing to indicate that the trial courtever acted on the request.
On the same day, a judgment was entered in the criminal case. (Id. at PageID 218.) The judgment contained the incorrect date of the jury's determination—January 14, 2009 instead of January 15, 2009—and erroneously indicated that Watson had pleaded guilty to the offense charged. (Id.) Approximately one month later, a "corrected" judgment was filed with a new entry date of May 19, 2009, still referencing Petitioner's plea to the offense charged. (Id. at PageID 219.)
On July 16, 2009, Watson filed a pro se "Amended Motion for New Trial" on the following grounds: 1) the trial court erred in allowing Petitioner to waive his right to counsel without sufficient inquiry into his competency either through an in-court colloquy or a formal evaluation, despite having been notified of defendant's mental health problems; 2) the trial court erred in not ensuring that Petitioner understood the charges against him, any lesser included offenses—including simple possession and casual exchange—or any possible defenses; 3) the trial court erred because the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction—namely the uncorroborated evidence of a confidential informant; 4) the commission of police and prosecutorial misconduct for, among other things, failing to reveal exculpatory evidence and proceeding with the prosecution for personal motives; and 5) the trial court erred when it included in the jury instructions the phrase, "when you find the Defendant guilty." (D.E. 20-1 at PageID 220-35.)
On January 8, 2010, Petitioner, now represented by Attorney Jason R. Creasy, filed a "Motion for Entry of Additional Corrected Judgment" to reflect that he was found guilty by a jury. (Id. at PageID 252-53.) On February 2, 2010, Watson moved to "Allow Amendments toPetitioner's Motion for New Trial." (Id. at PageID 255.) Attached to this pleading was a document styled as a "Third Amendment" to the Motion for New Trial. (Id. at PageID 257-59.) In it, Petitioner argued: 1) the timeliness of the motion, as the court was put on notice by his April 24, 2009 letter indicating an intent to request a new trial, which should have been accepted as a motion for a new trial; 2) the prosecution's failure to provide Petitioner with exculpatory evidence; and 3) the failure of the trial court to rule on pretrial motions, or, in the alternative, find good cause for deferring the ruling until after the trial or a verdict. (Id.)
The trial court entered another "corrected" judgment on March 9, 2010, to reflect that Petitioner was found guilty by a jury. (D.E. 20-1 at PageID 260.) Three days later, the trial court entered yet another corrected judgment to reflect that Watson's trial was conducted on January 15, 2009, rather than January 14, 2009. (Id. at PageID 261.) The March 12, 2009 judgment contained the correct information.
On March 12, 2010, following a hearing, the trial court issued an order denying Watson's motion for new trial, determining that the document filed on April 24, 2009, the letter to the trial court in which Petitioner requested new counsel and an extension of time for filing a motion for new trial, did not constitute a motion for new trial. (Id. at PageID 262.) Instead, the trial court determined that the July 15, 2009 document entitled "Amended Motion for New Trial" was the first such motion filed by Petitioner and was untimely, as it had been received more than thirty days after the entry of the April 24, 2009 judgment.3 (Id.) Despite finding the motion for newtrial and the subsequent amendments to be untimely, the trial court nevertheless ruled on the merits, ultimately concluding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief, in part because he was adequately admonished about the dangers of proceeding pro se.4 (Id. at PageID 263.) The trial court stated that Watson could challenge its conclusion that the motion for new trial was untimely with the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ("TCCA") and that, if the TCCA determined the motion was timely, the remaining issues could be addressed by the TCCA. (D.E. 20-6 at PageID 767).
On June 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. (D.E. 20-1 at PageID 265-306.) In his petition, Watson alleged two grounds for relief: (1) the conviction was based on the unconstitutional failure of the prosecution to disclose favorable evidence to defendant; and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel. To support the second basis, Watson attached his formal complaints to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility ("BPR") alleging misconduct by Boxx at arraignment and plea, Howie at trial, and Anyanwu at sentencing. (Id. at PageID 274-303.) Attorney Charles Kelly, Sr., was appointed to representWatson, and an amended petition was filed, alleging the following grounds for relief: (1) that Boxx was ineffective for failing to locate documents that would have supported Watson's alibi defense; and (2) that both Howie and Anyanwu were ineffective for failing to file a timely motion for new trial. (D.E. 20-10 at PageID 855.) With respect to this second ground, Watson further alleged that, had the motion been timely filed, he would have been awarded a new trial because the transcript of the hearing wherein the court questioned him on his competency to proceed pro se was missing. (Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial