Williams v. Payne

• Decision Date: 28 April 2020
• Docket Number: 5:19-cv-00345-BRW-JJV
• Parties: FRED L. WILLIAMS ADC #093355 PETITIONER v. DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

FRED L. WILLIAMS ADC #093355 PETITIONER v. DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT

5:19-cv-00345-BRW-JJV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

April 28, 2020

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Fred L. Williams, an inmate at the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction, brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pro se. (Doc. No. 2.) Mr. Williams was convicted by a jury in Drew County, Arkansas, of first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse. (Doc. No. 9-2 at 120-22.) He was sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent terms of life imprisonment and twenty years. (Id.) The Arkansas Supreme Court recited the evidence in the case as follows:

On the morning of April 5, 2013, Tangela Walton accompanied her daughter on a Southeast Arkansas Transportation bus from their home in Warren to her school in Monticello. After signing her daughter into school, Walton returned to the bus for transportation back to her home in Warren. During the trip, the bus driver observed Walton in what appeared to be an argument with someone on her cell phone. Between approximately 8:15 a.m. and 8:20 a.m., the bus dropped Walton off at her home; however, she failed to make arrangements for the return trip to pick up her daughter as she had in the past.

That afternoon, Walton was not at home when her two other children were dropped off after school, and she was unreachable on her cell phone. Upon her being reported to the police as missing, Williams, Walton's on-again, off-again boyfriend, was interviewed by Criminal Investigator Don Hollingsworth of the Warren Police Department. During the interview, Williams admitted speaking with Walton the morning of April 5, but denied knowing where she might be. In addition, Williams's home was searched, but neither Walton, nor her cell phone, was located at that time.

After obtaining Walton's phone records, Hollingsworth again interviewed Williams on April 10. At that time, Williams again admitted talking to Walton on the morning of April 5. Williams further conceded that he "might have texted" Walton later that day to ask what she was doing, but he denied having any arguments with her that day.

On April 14, Hollingsworth received notice that Williams and his attorney were at the Monticello Police Department for Williams to make another statement. When Hollingsworth arrived, Williams was on the floor, and Hollingsworth was told that Williams had had a seizure; he was taken to the hospital. While in the emergency room, Williams told Investigator Hollingsworth where Walton's body was located.

The next day, Williams was interviewed once more. At that time, Williams stated that Walton had called him on the morning of April 5 and asked him if he "want[ed] to get together and have sex." Williams said that he texted her "okay" and that he then went to Warren, picked her up, and they returned to his house in Monticello. Williams said that they engaged in "kinky" sex, explaining that Walton wanted to be tied up and "try oxygen deprivation treatment where you put a bag over her head and have sex" in an effort to increase orgasm.

Williams told police that they had sex once already, but that Walton wanted to have sex again. He stated that after they had begun, he went into a seizure and "fell out on her." Williams said that when he awakened, Walton was smothered, and he panicked. He said that he stayed with her for a couple of hours, crying and trying to revive her, but at some point he carried her outside of his house and buried her. He further stated that he had thrown out the necktie used to bind her hands and the bag they had used during sex, and he denied having argued with Walton that day.

Williams v. State, 2015 Ark. 316, at 1-3, 468 S.W.3d 776, 777-78. In addition to Mr. Williams's three statements and Investigator Hollingsworth's testimony, the following evidence was also presented at trial:

The State further presented testimony from Benjamin F. Wright, who was living with Walton's mother and saw Williams at the casino on the evening of April 5. Wright testified that when he asked Williams if Walton had reappeared, Williams told him that he had not seen her. Finally, the State presented the testimony of Dr. Adam Frederick Craig, who performed Walton's autopsy. Dr. Craig testified that Walton had seven recent bruises, including on her throat and the inner side of her upper arm, but no evidence that would indicate her having been bound or tied up. He further determined that Walton had died of asphyxia by undetermined means and that the manner of her death was homicide. When askedhow he arrived at that determination, Dr. Craig stated that the fact that Walton's body had seven different areas of fresh injury was important. He explained that taking those multiple injuries into account, coupled with the fact that there was a death, "means that some kind of probably physical altercation occurred at the time, at or around the time of death."

Id. at 9-10, 468 S.W.3d at 781.

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal, rejecting Mr. Williams's argument that the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict. Id. Mr. Williams then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, along with several supporting documents, in which he claimed his due-process rights were violated as a result of juror misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and an illegal search, and also raised multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. (Doc. No. 9-5 at 13-18.) The Drew County Circuit Court denied relief after a hearing. (Id. at 170-73.) The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding Mr. Williams's claims of trial error were not cognizable in Rule 37 proceedings and he had failed to meet the standard for an ineffective-assistance claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Williams v. State, 2019 Ark. 289, 586 S.W.3d 148.

Mr. Williams also filed two pro se petitions asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. (Doc. Nos. 9-9, 9-12.) Both petitions raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct, as well as various claims of trial error and ineffective assistance of counsel. Both were denied. Williams v. State, 2017 Ark. 145, 516 S.W.3d 722 (per curiam); Williams v. State, 2019 Ark. 173.

In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,¹ Mr. Williams recites seventeen grounds forrelief:

(1) the evidence is insufficient to support the first-degree murder conviction because it does not demonstrate Mr. Williams purposely caused the victim's death;

(2) Mr. Williams's Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the search warrant was facially deficient and lacking in probable cause;

(3) Mr. Williams was falsely arrested and his Miranda rights were violated;

(4) Mr. Williams's statement was mischaracterized in the autopsy report, demonstrating prosecutorial misconduct;

(5) an unknown juror had contact with the bailiff and sheriff, who communicated through "body language," and with the prosecutor and trial judge, who answered a factual question in the absence of Mr. Williams and his counsel;

(6) the prosecutor violated a suppression order during the testimony of State's witness Lacey Willet;

(7) the trial judge abused his discretion by communicating with a juror outside of Mr. Williams's presence and by failing to admonish the jury with respect to the suppression order violation;

(8) Mr. Williams's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the illegal search issue;

(9) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the Miranda violations;

(10) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to vigorously cross-examine Investigator Hollingsworth regarding the victim's cell phone records;

(11) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to vigorously cross-examine State's witness Jennifer Beaty regarding DNA evidence;

(12) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to vigorously cross-examine the State's witnesses regarding the misrepresentation of Mr. Williams's statement;

(13) Mr. Williams's right to a speedy

...