Williams v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
Decision Date | 12 July 2011 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:08-cv-857-J-34TEM |
Parties | SAMUEL WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
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.
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.
The Petition is timely filed within the one-year period of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Response at 2 n.3.
"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.
The Court will analyze Petitioner's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This standard is described as follows:
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) ( ); 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).
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