Williams v. Cartledge

• Decision Date: 04 November 2014
• Docket Number: C/A 2:14cv1360-MGL-WWD
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: James Jamal Williams, Petitioner, v. Leroy Cartledge, Warden, Respondent.

James Jamal Williams, Petitioner, v. Leroy Cartledge, Warden, Respondent.

C/A 2:14cv1360-MGL-WWD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

November 4, 2014

Report and Recommendation

The Petitioner, James Jamal Williams, Prisoner No. 180550, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on August 8, 2014. (Dkt. 19, 20).

Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review the instant petition for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.

Williams brought this habeas corpus action timely on April 14, 2014. (Dkt. 1). Respondent moved for summary judgment¹ and by order filed on August 11, 2014,pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Williams was advised of the summary judgment dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. 21). Williams moved before the court for additional time to respond, which motion was granted. On October 27, 2014, Williams filed his opposition to the summary judgment motion. Hence it appears consideration of the motion is appropriate.

Procedural History

Petitioner Williams is currently incarcerated in Broad River Correctional Institution pursuant to an order of commitment from the Clerk of Court of Darlington County. A Darlington County grand jury indicted Petitioner in October 2004 for kidnapping (04-GS-16-2048), burglary in the first degree (04-GS-16-2049), possession of a weapon during the commission of certain crimes (04-GS-16-2051), murder (04-GS-16-2052), and possession of 28 grams or less marijuana or 10 grams or less hashish (04-GS-16-2053). Attachment 1, Indictments and Sentencing Sheets.

The State sought the death penalty. Petitioner proceeded to a jury trial on May30, 2006, before the Honorable James E. Lockemy. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 139-2507. Robert L. Kilgo, Marshall U. Rogol, and Henry M. Anderson represented Petitioner in various pretrial matters. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 1, 15, 31, 77, 129. Rogol and Anderson represented Petitioner at trial. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 139. On June 8, 2006, the jury found Petitioner guilty of all charges. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2274-76.

After the penalty phase of the trial resulted in a deadlocked jury, Judge Lockemy sentenced Petitioner to the following concurrent terms of incarceration: life without the possibility for parole for murder,² life for burglary in the first degree, and thirty (30) days for possession of marijuana. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2500.

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Attachment 3, Notice of Appeal (Direct Appeal). On April 9, 2008, Robert M. Dudek, Deputy Chief Appellate Defender of Appellate Defense, filed a final Anders brief on Petitioner's behalf. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2508-21. Appellate counsel raised the following issue in the direct appeal:

Whether the court erred by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter where there was evidence appellant and the decedent began fighting after the decedent voluntarily allowed appellant into her apartment, since this constituted the "any evidence" necessary for receiving the lesser-included offense instruction?

Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2511. Appellate counsel also subm itted a request to be relieved as counsel as "in his opinion, the appeal [was] without legal merit sufficient towarrant a new trial." Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2519. On April 10, 2008, the Clerk of the South Carolina Court of Appeals advised the Petitioner that he could file a pro se "brief addressing any issues you believe the Court should consider in this appeal." Attachment 4, Letter dated April 10, 2008 from S.C. Court of Appeals (Direct Appeal). On May 13, 2008, the Petitioner filed a pro se Anders brief raising the following issues:

"Argument #1"

Did in fact the State falsely Prosecute Appellant under a "Invalid" Indictment.

"Argument #2"

The State did not have Jurisdiction over Subject matter.

"Argument #3"

The jury was tainted due to press, being Hostility towards Appellant in which was grounds for a Mistrial.

"Argument #4"

The Jury was tainted due to Defense Attorney failing to Vire Dire the Jury in which was affaliated with Law Enforcement. In which is Unconstitutional and Illegal.

"Argument #5"

The Judge did error in denying a charge of change of Venue, for the Appellant.

"Argument #6"

Did infact State's witness was allowed by Defendants Attorney to contradict himself by "Inconsistant Statements".

"Argument #7"

Did in fact the Law Enforcement Officer (S.L.E.D.) used tainted evidence in Appellants Trial during the Illegal Search and Seizure Warrant.

"Argument #8"

The State did not have proof of evidence to put Appellant at the crime scene, Illegal Search and Seizure.

"Argument #9"

Did in fact the State allowed a Law Enforcement Officer to commit the unlawful act of "Purjury" by lying about D.N.A. samples on door.

"Argument #10"

The judge did error by denying of a mistrial, and Direct Verdict.

"Argument #11"

Trial counsel was ineffective when the trial judge granted the Defense motion for "Ineffective Indictment". Trial counsel failed to proceed on with the ineffective indictment to the jury.

"Argument #11"

Trial counsel was ineffective when the trial judge granted the Defense motion for "Ineffective Indictment". Trial counsel failed to proceed on with the ineffective indictment to the jury.

Attachment 5, Pro Se Anders Brief (Direct Appeal) (errors in original).³

The Petitioner also argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try Petitioner's case and further that "he was 'denied' due process of law, 'denied' equal protection of the law, 'denied' the right to a 'fair and constitutional trial'. Thus violating the defendants 6th and 14th Amendments right to the United States Constitution." Attachment 5, Pro Se Anders Brief (errors in original).

In an unpublished opinion filed January 22, 2009, the South Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the Petitioner's direct appeal. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2523-24. The court also granted appellate counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2524. The South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a remittitur on February 11, 2009. Attachment 6, Remittitur (Direct Appeal).

The Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR) on February 24, 2009. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2525-29. The Petitioner raised the following ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his PCR application:

(a) Trial Counsel failed to correct false and misleading testimony.

(b) Trial (Prosecutorial) counsel failed to investigate the illegal search and seizure obtained by the use of falsifying evidence to an unconstitutional search and seizure, false imprisonment and the conviction was by the Court and obtained through the use of false evidence

(c) Appellate Counsel failed to raise or brief the insufficiency of evidence used by the Court to obtain a conviction.

Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2527 (errors in original.)

On May 14, 2009, the Petitioner filed an amendment to his PCR application. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2530-61. The Petitioner raised the following claims in the amendment:

(1) Whether Applicant's Trial Counsel was ineffective when Counsel failed to correct false and misleading testimony?

(2) Whether the Appellate Counsel was ineffective when Counsel failed to raise a merit Brief of insufficiency of evidence on the State's behalf?

(3) Whether the Court was in error when Applicant documentation showed and proved that the search warrant was illegal and unlawful during the Applicant's arrest?

(4) Whether the Prosecutor did use prosecutorial misconduct during Applicant's trial in his closing argument as misleading the jury with false testimony and evidence?

(5) Whether the jury venire was inflamed by the press media hostility against the Applicant 6th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution was violated?

(6) Whether the coerced confession of the Applicant deprived him of his 5th Amendment right under the Illegal search and seizure so warranted.

(7) Whether there was no substantial evidence which reasonably tend to prove guilt of Applicant, where guilt could be fairly and logically deduced on several of the Applicant's charges, as if the court erred by not granting the Motion For a Direct Verdict on several of the Applicant's charges?

Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2534 (errors in original).

The State made its return on April 28, 2009. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2562-65. An evidentiary hearing into the matter was convened on September 13, 2010, before the Honorable Thomas A. Russo. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2566-638.⁴ The Petitioner was present at the hearing and was represented by Bryan W. Braddock, Esquire. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2566. By order dated December 23, 2010, and filed December 30, 2010, Judge Russo denied and dismissed Petitioner's PCR application with prejudice. Attachment 2, PCR App. at 2639-46.

On January 6, 2011, PCR counsel Braddock filed a notice of appeal on the Petitioner's behalf. Attachment 7, Notice of Appeal (PCR Appeal). On January 4, 2011, Tristan M. Shaffer, Appellate Defender with the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari for Williams and presented the following issue:

In a capital murder trial, when the affidavit for a search warrant alleged that blood was found on Petitioner's door, but the blood was not actually found on Petitioner's door and instead was found somewhere inside a common hallway shared by both the victim and Petitioner, was trial counsel ineffective for failing to challenge the probable cause for the search warrant?

Attachment 8, Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 2 (PCR Appeal). The State...