Workman v. Sec'y
| Decision Date | 23 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:15-cv-306-J-34JBT |
| Parties | OLIVER WORKMAN, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Petitioner Oliver Workman, a former inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action on March 11, 2015, by filing a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Petition; Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition (Doc. 2). In the Petition, Workman challenges a 2010 state court (Putnam County, Florida) judgment of conviction for Medicaid provider fraud and grand theft. Respondents have submitted a memorandum in opposition to the Petition. See Response to Petition (Response; Doc. 7) with exhibits (Resp. Ex.). On September 11, 2015, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause and Notice to Petitioner (Doc. 6), admonishing Workman regarding his obligations and giving Workman a time frame in which to submit a reply. Workman submitted a brief in reply. See Petitioner's Reply (Doc. 9); Appendix (Pet. Ex.; Doc. 11). This case is ripe for review.
On July 7, 2009, the State of Florida charged Workman with Medicaid provider fraud (count one) and grand theft over $100,000 (count two). See Resp. Ex. A at 20, Information. On July 7, 2010, Workman entered a guilty plea. See Resp. Exs. C, Transcript of the Plea Proceeding (Plea Tr.); A at 42, Pretrial Minutes. On August 18, 2010, the court sentenced Workman to a term of imprisonment of five years for Medicaid provider fraud, and to a term of imprisonment of seven years for grand theft, to run concurrently to count one, followed by ten years of probation with restitution of $485,909.07. Resp. Exs. A at 46, 47-51, 54-65; C, Transcript of the Sentencing Proceeding. During the sentencing hearing, Workman filed a written statement. See Resp. Ex. A at 52.
On direct appeal, Workman, with the benefit of counsel, filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Resp. Ex. D at 1-12, 13-14. The State filed a notice that it did not intend to file a brief. See id. at 16-17. On May 3, 2011, the appellate court affirmed Workman's conviction and sentence per curiam, see Workman v. State, 60 So.3d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Resp. Ex. D at 18, and mandate issued on May 25, 2011, see Resp. Ex. D at 20.
Workman filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief (Rule 3.850 motion) pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 on April 29, 2011. See Resp. Ex. E at 1-27. In his Rule 3.850motion, he asserted that counsel (Wade M. Rolle) was ineffective because he failed to: protect his civil, constitutional and human rights when the trial court erred (ground one); file a direct appeal (ground two); conduct a pretrial investigation (additional claim); present any evidence relating to the possibility that Workman could have paid back the money in a brief amount of time (additional claim); and make any statements or arguments after the court imposed the sentence (additional claim). Additionally, Workman states that counsel was ineffective because he: represented him under a conflict of interest (ground three); made a false and misleading promise that resulted in an involuntary plea (ground four); denied him a probable cause hearing and a fair and impartial hearing (ground five); overlooked a Brady1 violation (ground six); and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment due to his misrepresentation, conflict of interest, and misconduct (ground seven). The State responded, see id. at 63-65, and Workman replied, see id. at 82-116. On March 28, 2012, the post-conviction court denied the Rule 3.850 motion as to grounds one, two, three, five, six, seven, and Workman's additional claims, and set an evidentiary hearing on ground four. See id. at 117-21. The court held an evidentiary hearing on March 14, 2012, see id. at 180; denied the Rule 3.850 motion as to ground four, see id. at 135-38; and later denied Workman's motion for rehearing, see id. at 158-62, 165. Onappeal, Workman filed an initial brief, see Resp. Ex. F at 1-18; the State filed an answer brief, see id. at 19-30; and Workman filed a reply brief, see id. at 31-48. On June 4, 2013, the appellate court affirmed the court's denial of post-conviction relief per curiam, see Workman v. State, 114 So.3d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Resp. Ex. F at 49, and the mandate issued on June 28, 2013, see Resp. Ex. F at 50.
On August 16, 2013, Workman filed a pro se motion to mitigate, reduce, or modify sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) (Rule 3.800(c) motion). See Resp. Ex. G at 1-8. The court denied the Rule 3.800(c) motion on September 6, 2013. See id. at 9.
On November 22, 2013, Workman filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) (1st Rule 3.800(a) motion). See id. at 10-16. In the 1st Rule 3.800(a) motion, Workman asserted that the trial court's imposition of "dual sentences for the two offenses" was a violation of double jeopardy. Id. at 13. The court denied the 1st Rule 3.800(a) motion on December 17, 2013. See id. at 18. Workman filed a motion to correct the court's order. See id. at 19-28. He asserted that the court mistakenly stated he entered into a negotiated plea on several counts when he had actually entered an open plea on two counts, which entitled him to raise a double jeopardy claim. Aftera hearing on April 14, 2014,2 the court entered an amended order denying Workman's 1st Rule 3.800(a) motion, stating in pertinent part:
THIS MATTER came before the Court on the defendant's pro se Motion to Correct Sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant asserts that he was unlawfully subjected to double jeopardy. The defendant entered into an open plea on two (2) counts, including a first degree felony. On the first degree felony, the defendant was sentenced to 7 years of incarceration followed by 10 years of probation. The remaining felony involved a concurrent and lesser sentence. There is simply no merit to the defendant's claim.
Id. at 29 (emphasis deleted). Workman did not appeal the court's denial of his 1st Rule 3.800(a) motion.
On December 5, 2013, Workman wrote a letter, dated December 2nd, to Judge Mendoza. In the letter, he asked for modification of his sentence and referred to the court's denial of his first Rule 3.800(c) motion. See id. at 15-16. The court construed the letter as a second Rule 3.800(c) motion, and denied it on December 17, 2013. See id. at 17.
On June 26, 2014, Workman filed a second motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure3.800(a) (2nd Rule 3.800(a) motion). See id. at 30-59. On August 20, 2014, the trial court denied the 2nd Rule 3.800(a) motion, stating in pertinent part:
See id. at 60 (emphasis deleted). Workman filed a notice of appeal, see id. at 63, and motion for rehearing, see id. at 65-68, on September 3, 2014. The court denied his motion for rehearing on September 15, 2014. See id. at 69. On appeal, Workman filed an initial brief, see id. at 70-84, and the State notified the court that it did not intend to file an answer brief, see id. at 85-86. On November 10, 2014, the appellate court affirmed the court's denial of post-conviction relief per curiam, see Workman v. State, 152 So.3d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); Resp. Ex. G at 87, and denied his motion for rehearing on December 15, 2014, see Resp. Ex. G at88-91, 92. The mandate issued on January 5, 2015. See Resp. Ex. G at 93.
On January 2, 2015, Workman filed a pro se motion to correct manifest injustice and miscarriage of justice pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) (3rd Rule 3.800(a) motion). See Resp. Ex. H at 1-7. In the 3rd Rule 3.800(a) motion, Workman asserted that the court, in prior orders, never ruled on the merits of his double jeopardy claim. The court denied the motion on January 14, 2015. See id. at 8. Workman did not appeal the court's denial of his motion.
The Petition appears to be timely filed within the one-year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to establish the need for a federal evidentiary hearing. See Chavez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir. 2011). "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); Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 834 F.3d 1299, 1318-19 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 2245 (2017). "It follows that if the recordrefutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing." Schriro, 550 U.S. at 474. The pertinent facts of this case are fully developed in the record before the Court. Because this Court can "adequately assess [Workman's] claim[s] without further factual development," Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003), an evidentiary hearing will...
To continue reading
Request your trial