Winn v. Phelps

• Decision Date: 29 September 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 08-422-GMS
• Citation: Winn v. Phelps, Civil Action No. 08-422-GMS (D. Del. Sep 29, 2011)
• Parties: HILLARD WINN, Petitioner, v. PERRY PHELPS, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

HILLARD WINN, Petitioner,

v.PERRY PHELPS, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.

Civil Action No. 08-422-GMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Dated: September 29, 2011

Hillard Winn.Pro se petitioner.

James T. Wakley, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware.Counsel for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sept 29, 2011

Wilmington, Delaware

Sleet Chief Judge

Pending before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitionerHillard Winn("Winn").(D.I. 1)For the reasons discussed, the court will deny the petition.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 2006, Ruth Boccelli was introduced to Winn by a friend named Doss.Doss explained to Boccelli that Winn needed a place to stay, because Winn's girlfriend had thrown him out.(D.I. 20at 1)Boccelli was living in an apartment in Lexington Green, where she allowed her apartment to be used for illegal drug activities.Boccelli had no electric or phone service at that time.Her four and a half year old daughter had recently been removed from the home by the State, due to Boccelli's drug use and the deplorable living conditions in the apartment.Winn told Boccelli that he needed a place to store his belongings, and he agreed to assist Boccelli with her utility bills and rent.Winn even offered to help Boccelli get her daughter back, offering to be the child's legal guardian while Boccelli completed drug rehabilitation treatment.Boccelli agreed to let Winn bring his belongings to her apartment, and Winn brought about ten bags of his things to the apartment.Id. at 1-2.

As part of his agreement to help Boccelli with her payments, Winn asked to be included on Boccelli's lease.To that end, Boccelli and Winn met with the apartment manager to get an application.Boccelli told the Department of Family Services worker that Winn was an old boyfriend.But two days later, Boccelli realized that she had made a mistake.She called the apartment manager and asked that Winn not be added to the lease.Because she planned to go into a treatment program, Boccelli accepted that she would be evicted from her apartment.WhenBoccelli did not hear from Winn for several days, she moved his bags into the hallway for him to retrieve.After complaints from her neighbors, Boccelli eventually threw Winn's bags into a dumpster.Id. at 2.

On March 5, 2006, about ten (10) days after Winn had left his belongings with Boccelli, Winn returned.Boccelli had gone to bed early that evening, around 9:15 p.m.She had been off of drags for three days, and she had a friend, "Smoke," staying in the living room to help keep out the drug dealers and addicts who used to hang out in the apartment.Boccelli was asleep in the back bedroom, while Smoke slept in a recliner in the front room of the apartment.Id.

Boccelli awoke to find Winn standing over her, demanding to know what she had done with his belongings.Winn hit her repeatedly, throwing her into the wall.Boccelli tried to ran away, but Winn went after her, kicking her in the stomach so hard that she wet her pants.Although there were no lights on in the apartment, light came in through the sheer curtains.At some point, Boccelli saw Winn swinging a black crowbar or tire iron.Boccelli thought that Winn hit her with the crowbar.Other people had come into the apartment with Winn, although none of the other peopled attacked Boccelli.Boccelli finally told Winn that she had taken his things to the apartment of a woman known as "Mom."Boccelli planned to escape while Winn left to look for his bags at Mom's.However, Winn told his friend 'Poohmere" to stay with Boccelli while Winn went to check out his belongings.It was not long before Winn returned even angrier.Poohmere let Winn back into the apartment.Winn threatened to kill Boccelli and said, "Empty the trunk, this f*cking white bitch is going in the ground."Winn threw a chair at Boccelli and continued to push her around.Id. at 2-3.

Boccelli eventually convinced Winn that she needed to change her clothes.Poohmereallowed her to go into her bedroom and shut the door.Boccelli moved the bed to block the door, put on a pair of jeans, and then jumped out of the second story window.Boccellli ran into the road, stopped a car, and asked for help.She ran to a parking lot where she saw people coming out of a church.Boccelli ran inside and announced that she had been beaten by a man with a tire iron and that she needed the police.The police arrived, and several persons who were leaving Boccelli's residence were detained.Boccelli was brought to the rear of her building for a show-up where she identified Winn as her assailant.When examined by a forensic nurse three (3) days later, Boccelli had bruising all over her body, including a pattern injury on her left arm.Id. at 3.

In April 2006, Winn was indicted on charges of first degree burglary, second degree assault, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and terroristic threatening.Winn v. State, 947 A.2d 1123(Table), 2008 WL 223257, at *1(Del.Jan. 28, 2008).On the last day of his four-day trial in September 2006, Winn moved for an acquittal of the first degree burglary and second degree assault charges.Id.The Superior Court denied Winn's motion, and the jury convicted him of first degree burglary, third degree assault (as a lesser included offense of second degree assault), and terroristic threatening.Id.The Superior Court sentenced Winn as an habitual offender in January 2007 to an aggregate of thirty-four (34) years incarceration, suspended after thirty-two (32) years for a term of probation.The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Winn's convictions and sentences.Id.

Winn did not file a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.Rather, in 2008, he filed a Rule 35(a)motion for correction of illegal sentence, which the Superior Court denied.State v. Winn, 2010 WL 2477867(Del. Super. Ct.June 17, 2010).The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that judgment on February 16, 2011.Winn v. State, 15 A.3d 218(Table), 2011 WL 556439(Del.Feb. 16, 2011).

II.GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A.The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA")"to reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences ... and to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism."Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 206(2003).Pursuant to AEDPA, a federal court may consider a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner only "on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).AEDPA imposes procedural requirements and standards for analyzing the merits of a habeas petition in order to "prevent federal habeas 'retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law."Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685,693(2002);seeWoodford, 538 U.S. at 206.

B.Exhaustion and Procedural Default

Absent exceptional circumstances, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless the petitioner has exhausted all means of available relief under state law.28 U.S.C. § 2254(b);O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-44(1999);Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275(1971).AEDPA states, in pertinent part:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that -

(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or

(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or

(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

The exhaustion requirement is based on principles of comity, requiring a petitioner to give "state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."'O 'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 844-45;Werts v. Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178, 192(3d Cir.2000).A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by demonstrating that the habeas claims were "fairly presented" to the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding.SeeLambert v, Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513(3d Cir.1997);Coverdale v. Snyder, 2000 WL 1897290, at *2(D. Del.Dec. 22, 2000)."Fair presentation of a claim means that the petitioner must present a federal claim's factual and legal substance to the state courts in a manner that puts them on notice that a federal claim is being asserted."Holloway v. Horn, 355 F,3d 707, 714(3d Cir.2004).

C.Standard of Review

1.Deferential standard of § 2254(d)

When a state court has adjudicated a petitioner's habeas claim on the merits, a federal district court can only grant habeas relief if the state court's 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2);Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412(2000);Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203,210(3d Cir.2001).A claim has been "adjudicated on the merits" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) if the state court decision finally resolves the claim on the basis of its substance, rather than on a procedural or some other ground.Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105, 115(3d Cir.2009).The deferential standard of § 2254(d) applies even "when a state court's order is unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the reasons relief has been denied";...