Williams v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

Decision Date12 July 2011
Docket NumberCase No. 3:08-cv-857-J-34TEM
PartiesSAMUEL WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
ORDER
I. Status

Petitioner Samuel Williams, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Petition) (Doc. #1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 2, 2008, pursuant to the mailbox rule. Petitioner challenges a 2005 state court (Duval County, Florida) judgment of conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, asserting that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecutor made improper comments during closing arguments (ground one); his right to trial by jury was violated when the sentencing court, rather than the jury, made the findings that authorized the imposition of a sentence greater than the statutory maximum (ground two); and his appellate counsel was ineffective because she failed to raise, ondirect appeal, the trial court's abuse of discretion in denying the defense's motion for a continuance of the trial (ground seven). Additionally, Petitioner claims that his counsel was ineffective because she failed to: object to the prosecutor's improper comments (ground three); request a jury instruction on the permissive lesser offense of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (ground four); elicit testimony from Petitioner regarding his purpose for clutching the bags when the police approached the car (ground five); and request a jury instruction that provided that the jury was to consider evidence of past crimes only with regard to Petitioner's credibility (ground six).

Respondents have submitted a memorandum in opposition to the Petition. See Respondents' Response to Petition for Habeas Corpus (Response) (Doc. #11) with exhibits (Resp. Ex). On September 23, 2008, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause and Notice to Petitioner (Doc. #6), admonishing Petitioner regarding his obligations and giving Petitioner a time frame in which to submit a reply. Petitioner submitted a brief in reply on June 18, 2009. See Petitioner's Reply to Respondents' Response to Petition for Habeas Corpus (Reply) (Doc. #19); see also Response to Court's Order (Doc. #21), filed April 27, 2011. This case is ripe for review.

II. Procedural History

On February 5, 2004, Petitioner was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count one); possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis (count two); and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (count three). Resp. Ex. A at 8-9. After jury selection, Petitioner proceeded to a jury trial on count one. Resp. Ex. B, Transcript of the Jury Trial Proceedings (Tr.). At the conclusion of the trial, a jury found Petitioner guilty, as charged in the Information, of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Resp. Ex. A at 63, Verdict; Tr. at 190. On April 21, 2005, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a term of twenty years of incarceration. Resp. Ex. A at 89-94; Sentencing Tr. at 140.

On appeal, Petitioner, through counsel, filed an Initial Brief, raising the following claims: (1) Petitioner was denied a fair trial when the prosecutor made improper and prejudicial remarks during closing arguments, and (2) Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the sentencing court, rather than the jury, made the findings that authorized the imposition of a sentence greater than the statutory maximum for the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Resp. Ex. D. The State filed an Answer Brief. Resp. Ex. E. On February 22, 2006, the appellate court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence per curiam without issuing a written opinion. Williams v.State, 924 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Resp. Ex. F. The mandate issued on March 10, 2006. Resp. Ex. G. Petitioner did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court.

Petitioner filed a pro se motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (Rule 3.850 motion) on September 7, 2006, pursuant to the mailbox rule, asserting that his counsel was ineffective because she failed to (1) object to the prosecutor's improper comments during closing arguments; (2) question Petitioner regarding the manner in which he clutched the bags containing the firearm; (3) request a jury instruction on the lesser offense of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; and (4) request a jury instruction that provided that the jury was to consider evidence of past crimes only with regard to Petitioner's credibility. Resp. Ex. I at 1-22. The State responded, id. at 26-107, and Petitioner replied, id. at 108-09. The circuit court denied the Rule 3.850 motion on June 6, 2007. Id. at 110-15.

Petitioner appealed and filed a pro se brief. Resp. Ex. J. The State filed a Notice that it would not file an Answer Brief. Resp. Ex. K. On February 20, 2008, the appellate court affirmed the denial per curiam. Williams v. State, 977 So.2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Resp. Ex. L. The court denied Petitioner's motion for rehearing. Resp. Exs. M; N. The mandate issued on April 14, 2008. Resp. Ex. O. On March 10, 2008, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that counsel failed to raise the following issues on direct appeal: (1) the trial court denied Petitioner's motion for continuance, (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it did not allow Petitioner to present his theory of the defense. Resp. Ex. P. On May 1, 2008, the court denied the petition on the merits. Williams v. State, 983 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Resp. Ex. Q.

III. One-Year Limitations Period

The Petition is timely filed within the one-year period of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Response at 2 n.3.

IV. Evidentiary Hearing

"In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief." Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007) (citation omitted). "It follows that if the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing." Id. The pertinent facts of this case are fully developed in the record before the Court. Because this Court can "adequately assess [Petitioner's] claim[s] without further factual development," Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003), cert.denied, 541 U.S. 1034 (2004), an evidentiary hearing will not be conducted.

V. Standard of Review

The Court will analyze Petitioner's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This standard is described as follows:

As explained by the Supreme Court, the phrase "'clearly established Federal law' . . . refers to the holdings . . . of [the Supreme Court's] decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). We have held that to be "contrary to" clearly established federal law, the state court must either (1) apply a rule "that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law," or (2) reach a different result from the Supreme Court "when faced with materially indistinguishable facts." Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1241 (11th Cir. 2003).
As regards the "unreasonable application" prong of § 2254(d)(1), we have held as follows:
A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established law if the state court unreasonably extends or fails to extend a clearly established legal principle to a new context. An application of federal law cannot be considered unreasonable merely because it is, in our judgment, incorrect or erroneous; a state court decision must also be unreasonable. Questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo, as is the district court's conclusion regarding the reasonableness of the state court's application of federal law.
Jennings v. McDonough, 490 F.3d 1230, 1236 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In sum, "a federal habeas court making the 'unreasonable application' inquiry should ask whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable." Williams, 529 U.S. at 409, 120 S.Ct. at 1521. Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) commands that for a writ to issue because the state court made an "unreasonable determination of the facts," the petitioner must rebut "the presumption of correctness [of a state court's factual findings] by clear and convincing evidence."[1 ] 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1155-56 (11th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 647 (2010).

Finally, for a state court's resolution of a claim to be an adjudication on the merits, so that the state court's determination will be entitled to deference for purposes of federal habeas corpus review under AEDPA, all that is required is a rejection of the claim on the merits, not an opinion that explains the state court's rationale for such a ruling. Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 (2011) (holding that section 2254(d) does not require a state court to give reasons before its decision can be deemed to have been adjudicated on the merits); Wright v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., 278 F.3d 1245, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 906 (2003). Thus, to the extent that Petitioner's claims wereadjudicated on the merits in the state courts, they must be evaluated under § 2254(d).

VI. Exhaustion/Procedural Default

There are prerequisites to a federal habeas review:

Before bringing a § 2254 habeas action in federal court, a petitioner must exhaust all state court remedies that are available for challenging his state conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). To exhaust state remedies, the petitioner must "fairly present[]" every
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT