Williams v. Miller

• Decision Date: 13 November 2018
• Docket Number: No. 3:17-CV-341-M (BH),3:17-CV-341-M (BH)
• Parties: ZACHARIAH ARTHUR WILLIAMS, JR., ID # 1969543, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MILLER, Respondent
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

ZACHARIAH ARTHUR WILLIAMS, JR., ID # 1969543, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MILLER, Respondent

No. 3:17-CV-341-M (BH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

November 13, 2018

Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

By Special Order 3-251, this habeas case has been referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Based on the relevant findings and applicable law, the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 received on February 6, 2017, should be DENIED with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

Zachariah Arthur Williams, Jr. (Petitioner), an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), filed a § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction for aggravated assault. The respondent is Warden Miller (Respondent).

A. State Court Proceedings

Petitioner was indicted for aggravated robbery in Cause No. F13-53277 in Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas. (See doc. 17-6 at 12.)¹ The State alleged a prior conviction for enhancement. He pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried before a jury on September 10-13, 2013.

On March 7, 2013, a truck driver was sleeping in his truck at a truck stop. Shortly aftermidnight, he was awakened by what sounded like a metal pipe hitting the ground. He looked out and saw a man beating another man who was laying on the ground. The other man was above him, on his knees, and using his body weight to add leverage to his blows. According to the truck driver, "It wasn't a normal one guy hitting another guy to defend him off or put him down. This guy was meaning to do some serious damage." The man on the ground did not move, and there was a lot of blood. The truck driver called 911. He did not see a weapon, and he did not identify what cause the metal clanking sound that he heard.

A police officer responded to the scene. The victim was on the ground near a truck, and there was blood around him. He was disoriented and in pain, and his face was bloody and swollen. He was bleeding from the mouth, and there were teeth on the ground. There was also blood on the truck bumper. The officer interviewed a woman at the scene, whom he knew was a prostitute. The officer testified that prostitutes sometimes work with others at a truck stop to rob truckers. Based on his investigation, the officer obtained a physical description of a suspect and his clothing.

A police sergeant driving to the scene saw Petitioner walking nearby. He fit the description of the suspect. There was blood on his clothes, and he kept putting his hands in his pockets as if trying to conceal something. The sergeant stopped Petitioner and discovered a small aluminum bat in a leg of his pants. The bat was the type used by truckers to hit tires to check tire inflation. Petitioner also had gold cufflinks, a tie clip, cigarettes, and a lighter. He had a bump on his head above his left eye. Petitioner admitted to the sergeant that he was involved in the fight, stating, "Yeah, I hit him but he - he pulled the bat on me, and I took it away from him, [and] [t]hen I took my aggression out on him." A crime scene investigator took photographs of the crime scene, the victim, and appellant. He noted that the bat did not have visible blood on it.

A detective assigned to investigate the case interviewed Petitioner. After receiving Miranda warnings, Petitioner stated that the victim hit him on the head with the bat, but that he got the bat away from the victim. He denied using the bat on the victim. The detective saw the victim at the hospital, who had extensive facial injuries and could not be interviewed.

The woman interviewed by the officer testified that Petitioner, whom she did not know until that night, took her to the victim, and she got into the cab of the victim's truck. Petitioner asked the victim for five dollars for finding and bringing her to him. When the victim refused, Petitioner told the victim that he had flattened his tires. The victim gave the woman some money for dinner, and she left the truck to go into the store at the truck stop. As she returned to the victim's truck, she passed Petitioner, who told her that the victim had jumped out and started hitting him with a bat. Petitioner showed her the bat. The woman discovered the victim covered in blood next to his truck. She ran toward some police cars and yelled for help.

The victim testified that he did not remember much from the night he was beaten. He awoke in the hospital several weeks after the incident. He lost teeth, his face was rebuilt, and at the time of trial, he continued to have blurry eyesight, memory loss, a torn rotator cuff, and numbness in his head and face. Because of the beating, he could no longer drive trucks. He identified the tie clip and cufflinks found on Petitioner as his. See Williams v. State, No. 05-13-01479-CR, 2015 WL 3868530 at *1-2 (Tex. App. - Dallas June 23, 2015).

The jury was instructed on aggravated robbery and the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault, and it convicted Petitioner of aggravated assault. (See doc. 17-6 at 124, 131, 151.) After he was convicted, the State offered, and Petitioner accepted, an agreement on punishment for a 15-year sentence. (See docs. 17-6 at 126; 17-14 at 6-7.) The judgment stated that Petitioner wasconvicted of aggravated robbery, (see id. at 131), and it was corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc to show that he was convicted of aggravated assault, (see id. at 151). It was affirmed on appeal. See Williams, 2015 WL 3868530.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review. See Williams v. State, PD-949-15 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 4, 2015). Petitioner's first state habeas application was signed on August 14, 2014, and received by the court on August 29, 2014. (See doc. 17-20 at 5, 21.) On October 29, 2014, it was dismissed because his appeal was pending. (See doc. 17-18); see Ex parte Williams, WR-82,277-01 (Tex. Crim. App. October 29, 2014). Petitioner's second state habeas application was signed on February 4, 2016, and received by the court on February 11, 2016. (See doc. 18-5 at 5, 29.) On December 7, 2016, it was denied without written order on the findings of the trial court. (Doc. 18-1); see Ex parte Williams, WR-82,277-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 7, 2016).

B. Substantive Claims

Petitioner raises the following grounds:

(1) There was an illegal search and seizure by illegally arresting him, taking DNA samples, and taking photographs of him;

(2) His statements were involuntary, because he was not given Miranda warnings;

(3) He was denied an examining trial and a motion to suppress;

(4) He was denied the right to a speedy trial;

(5) The indictment was defective, and there was a variance between the original indictment and the amended indictment at trial;

(6) The evidence was insufficient to show that he used a deadly weapon and that he was not acting in self-defense;

(7) He had a mental disability, and he was not properly treated under the AmericanDisabilities Act.

(8) He was subjected to double jeopardy;

(9) Counsel was ineffective because he:

(a) improperly selected the jury;

(b) not cross-examining witnesses effectively;

(c) not requesting an examining trial;

(d) not moving to suppress his confession;

(e) not objecting to Petitioner being shackled before the jury;

(f) not obtaining evidence in his defense;

(g) failing to advise Petitioner about the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act;

(h) not objecting to hearsay evidence and photographs admitted at trial;

(10) The prosecution amended the indictment during trial, presented perjured testimony, and delayed court proceedings;

(11) The trial court failed to instruct the jury on the presumption of reasonableness for Petitioner's use of deadly force in self-defense, shackled him before the jury, and excluded him from resentencing; and

(12) Appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to raise claims about the weapon and he did not sufficiently communicate with Petitioner.

(See docs. 3, 4, 23.) Respondent filed a response on June 23, 2017. (Doc. 16.) Petitioner's reply, received on October 2, 2017, raises the following new claims:

(1) He has not been given a copy or access to the trial transcripts in violation of his right to due process (see doc. 23 at 9);

(2) Counsel was ineffective for bringing in another attorney to assist with the trial (see id. at 15);

(3) Counsel was ineffective, because Petitioner would have preferred to accept a plea agreement than go to trial (see id. at 15); and(4) Counsel was ineffective, because counsel did not visit Petitioner, and his pretrial discussions with counsel were recorded without knowing who was listening (see id. at 16).

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217, on April 24, 1996. Title I of the Act applies to all federal petitions for habeas corpus filed on or after its effective date. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 (1997). Because Petitioner filed his petition after its effective date, the Act applies.

Title I of AEDPA substantially changed the way federal courts handle habeas corpus actions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by AEDPA, a state prisoner may not obtain relief

with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim —

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

"In the context of federal habeas proceedings, a resolution (or adjudication) on the merits is a term of art that refers to whether a court's disposition of the case was substantive, as opposed...