William Hunt v. Leroy Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:09-cv-01444-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998650412].. [10-7315]

Appeal: 10-7315

Document: 20

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

Page: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7315

WILLIAM RICHARD HUNT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(0:09-cv-01444-TLW)

Submitted:

May 23, 2011

Decided:

August 9, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Alan Wilson, Attorney General, John W. McIntosh, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Deputy Attorney
General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7315

Document: 20

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

Page: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:
William

Richard

Hunt

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
granting summary judgment in favor of the State and dismissing
Hunt’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.

He argues on appeal that he received constitutionally

ineffective
hearing

assistance

and

at

of

his

counsel

South

both

Carolina

at

his

trial

suppression

for

marijuana

trafficking and possession of a weapon during the commission of
a violent crime.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Hunt was indicted after a confidential informant told
law enforcement he frequently purchased marijuana from Hunt, and
that Hunt had a toolbox in his garage containing significant
quantities of the drug.

Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)

Special Agent Michael Marbert directed the informant to make two
controlled

purchases

of

marijuana

from

Hunt.

After

the

purchases were made, Marbert applied for a search warrant for
Hunt’s

home,

purchases,

describing

and

also

in

stating

his
that

affidavit
he

had

the

controlled

interviewed

Hunt’s

neighbors who had informed him that Hunt was unemployed.
The magistrate judge issued the search warrant, and on
a search of Hunt’s home, law enforcement officers discovered
over

fifteen

described

by

pounds
the

of

marijuana

informant.

In
2

hidden

in

the

toolbox

as

addition,

law

enforcement

Appeal: 10-7315

Document: 20

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

Page: 3 of 7

located a .357 pistol by Hunt’s bed, over $51,000 in cash, and
various items of drug paraphernalia.

Hunt moved to suppress the

evidence, but at a hearing on the motion, counsel did little
more than cross-examine Marbert on his relationship with the
informant.

The

motion

was

denied,

and

Hunt

was

ultimately

convicted and given a twenty-five year sentence.
While

Hunt

did

not

appeal,

he

did

move

conviction relief (“PCR”) in South Carolina courts.
in

pertinent

failing

to

allegedly

part,

that

investigate

provided

trial

counsel

Marbert’s

misleading

was

claims,

information

for

post

He argued,

ineffective

that
to

for

Marbert

the

had

magistrate

judge in support of the warrant application, and that counsel
had failed to rebut certain evidence adduced at trial regarding
his

income.

The

PCR

court

denied

relief,

and

Hunt

was

unsuccessful in challenging that result on appeal.
Hunt

petitioned

the

district

court

pursuant

U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) for a writ of habeas corpus.

to

28

He made the

same ineffective assistance claims that were rejected by the PCR
court.

The magistrate judge recommended denying relief, and the

district

court

adopted

that

recommendation.

The

court

also

granted a certificate of appealability and this timely appeal
followed.
We review de novo a district court’s decision on a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on a state court
3

Appeal: 10-7315

Document: 20

record.

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

Page: 4 of 7

Gray v. Branker, 529 F.3d 220, 228 (4th Cir. 2008).

A

state court’s fact determinations are presumed correct, and the
§ 2254 petitioner bears the burden of rebutting this presumption
by “clear and convincing evidence.”
Relief

is

available

decision

“was

under

contrary

§ 2254
to,

28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

only

or

if

the

involved

state

an

court’s

unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law,” or “was based
on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
§ 2254(d).

A

state

established

federal

court
law

decision

if

the

is

“contrary

state

court

28 U.S.C.
to”

clearly

“arrives

at

a

conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a
question of law or if the state court decides a case differently
than

[the

Supreme

Court]

indistinguishable facts.”
412-13

(2000).

A

has

on

a

set

of

materially

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

state

court

decision

is

an

“unreasonable

application” of such precedent if the state court “identifies
the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s
decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts
of the prisoner’s case.”

Id. at 413.

In order to succeed on his ineffective assistance of
counsel claims, Hunt must satisfy the two-prong test set out in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
the

first

prong

of

Strickland,
4

Hunt

must

demonstrate

Under
that

Appeal: 10-7315

Document: 20

counsel’s

performance

reasonableness”
688.

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

under

“fell

below

prevailing

Page: 5 of 7

an

objective

professional

standard

norms.

of

Id.

at

To satisfy the second prong of Strickland, Hunt must show

a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional
errors,

“the

different.”

result
Id.

at

of

the

694.

proceeding

“A

would

reasonable

have

probability

been
is

a

probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
Id.

I.
Hunt

first

claims

Suppression
that

counsel

was

ineffective

for

failing to mount a sufficient challenge to the basis for the
search warrant at the suppression hearing.

In reviewing the

validity of a search warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether,
under the totality of the circumstances, the issuing judge had a
substantial basis for concluding there was probable cause to
issue the warrant.

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983);

United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2005).
“When

reviewing

the

probable

cause

supporting

a

warrant,

a

reviewing court must consider only the information presented to
the

magistrate

who

issued

the

warrant.”

Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 118 (4th Cir. 1996).

United

States

We afford “great

deference” to a judicial probable cause determination.
States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 309 (4th Cir. 2004).
5

v.

United

Appeal: 10-7315

Document: 20

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

Page: 6 of 7

If the affidavit for a search warrant is alleged to
contain false statements, a court must conduct the analysis set
forth in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

In order to

obtain an evidentiary hearing on the affidavit’s integrity, a
defendant
that

a

must

false

first

make

statement

a

“substantial

knowingly

and

preliminary

showing

intentionally,

or

with

reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in
the warrant affidavit.”
information

must

be

Id. at 155-56.
essential

Additionally, the false

to

the

probable

cause

determination: “if, when material that is the subject of the
alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there
remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a
finding

of

probable

cause,

no

hearing

is

required.”

United

States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting
Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72).
Even

assuming

that

Hunt

is

correct

that

Marbert

misrepresented his interactions with Hunt’s neighbors regarding
Hunt’s employment status, we easily conclude that the remainder
of the warrant application demonstrates probable cause.
enforcement

officers

marijuana from Hunt.

coordinated

two

controlled

purchases

the

of

The informant was able to provide specific

details about the location and source of Hunt’s marijuana.
addition,

Law

controlled

purchases

were

recorded

and

In
the

informant arranged for the purchases with Hunt over the phone in
6

Appeal: 10-7315

Document: 20

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

Page: 7 of 7

the presence of law enforcement.

On these facts, and keeping in

mind

the

our

deferential

review

of

state

court

judgment,

we

conclude the district court properly denied relief.

II.

Trial

Hunt next claims that counsel was deficient at trial
for failing to impeach Marbert and failing to rebut evidence
that he had no legitimate income.
evidence

adduced

without merit.

against

Hunt,

In light of the overwhelming
however,

we

find

this

claim

Law enforcement officers seized fifteen pounds

of marijuana, paraphernalia, and significant quantities of cash
from Hunt’s home.

Even if counsel had pursued the strategy Hunt

now suggests, we cannot conclude that the PCR court unreasonably
applied federal law by determining that the jury’s verdict would
have remained unchanged.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

7