Freddie Taylor v. Winn Correctional Center

Filing

Case: 09-30961

Document: 00511198155

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/09/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-30961 S u m m a r y Calendar August 9, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

F R E D D I E LEE TAYLOR, P e titio n e r-A p p e lla n t v. T IM O T H Y WILKINSON, WARDEN, WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, R e s p o n d e n t -A p p e lle e

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 1:08-CV-1913

B e fo r e KING, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* F r e d d ie Lee Taylor, Louisiana state prisoner # 100971, requests a c e r t ific a t e of appealability ("COA") to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, challenging his conviction for attempted manslaughter and p o s s e s s io n of a firearm by a convicted felon. Taylor alleged in his § 2254

a p p lic a t io n that (1) an erroneous reasonable doubt jury instruction deprived him o f a fair trial, (2) the erroneous admission of other crimes evidence deprived him o f a fair trial, (3) the state withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 09-30961

Document: 00511198155 Page: 2 No. 09-30961

Date Filed: 08/09/2010

v . Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), (4) an involuntary statement by a witness was a d m it t e d into evidence at trial, and (5) his counsel rendered ineffective a s s is ta n c e . T h e district court dismissed Taylor's § 2254 application after determining t h a t Taylor failed to exhaust state court remedies, specifically determining that t h e evidence before the court revealed that none of Taylor's habeas claims were p r e s e n t e d in Taylor's initial state post-conviction application filed in the Eighth J u d ic ia l District Court. The district court also concluded, having examined T a y lo r 's petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court, that even if Taylor properly p r e s e n t e d his claims on state habeas, all except the Brady claim were waived b e c a u s e only the Brady claim involved federal law. The district court, in the a lt e r n a t iv e , also denied the Brady claim on the merits. In addition to his COA application, Taylor has filed in this court a request fo r expansion of the record, seeking to supplement the record with a copy of his s t a t e post-conviction application filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in J u ly 2005. Taylor's motion to supplement the record is GRANTED. A COA will be granted if the applicant makes "a substantial showing of the d e n ia l of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing, t h e applicant must demonstrate "that reasonable jurists would find the district c o u r t's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. M c D a n ie l, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). When the district court's denial of federal h a b e a s relief is based on procedural grounds without analysis of the underlying c o n s t it u t io n a l claims, "a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, t h a t jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid c la im of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id. The district court, in dismissing Taylor's § 2254 application for failure to e x h a u s t state remedies, did not have before it a copy of the complete state court r e c o r d and specifically did not have a copy of Taylor's July 2005 state application 2

Case: 09-30961

Document: 00511198155 Page: 3 No. 09-30961

Date Filed: 08/09/2010

fo r post-conviction relief, which Taylor has provided to this court. A review of t h e claims raised in Taylor's state post-conviction application reveals that the is s u e whether Taylor exhausted state court remedies merits further in v e s t ig a t io n . Although the district court's conclusion that only the Brady claim w a s based on federal law may ultimately resolve the case, see Yohey v. Collins, 9 8 5 F.2d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 1993), the district court needs to determine whether t h a t conclusion is still valid in light of the expanded record. Taylor has shown t h a t reasonable jurists would debate the district court's determination, made w it h o u t the benefit of a complete state court record, that Taylor had failed to e x h a u s t his § 2254 claims in state court. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. In order for a COA to issue, Taylor must show not only that reasonable ju r is t s could debate whether the district court was correct in its procedural r u lin g , but also that reasonable jurists could find it debatable that the petition s t a t e s a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); S la c k , 529 at 484. The district court declined to address the merits of all but T a y lo r 's Brady claim, which it denied on the merits in the alternative. Thus, we a r e faced with a situation in which we are to evaluate whether Taylor's petition s t a t e s a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right when the district court r e a c h e d the merits of only one of several claims. As we explained in Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004), " [p ]e r fo r m in g the merits-based portion of the COA inquiry [where a district court h a s dismissed a habeas petition on procedural grounds] does not necessarily w o r k in the same way as it would if the district court had passed on the merits o f [the] petition." When the district court's judgment is on procedural grounds, t h e district court "may or may not have received briefing from the parties or had a c c e s s to the underlying state records pertinent to the merits." Id. Ultimately, " [i]f those materials are unclear or incomplete, then COA should be granted, and t h e appellate panel, if it decides the procedural issue favorably to the petitioner, m a y have to remand the case for further proceedings." Id. 3

Case: 09-30961

Document: 00511198155 Page: 4 No. 09-30961

Date Filed: 08/09/2010

I n this case, the district court did not order respondent to submit briefing a d d r e s s in g any of Taylor's claims nor did the court order respondent to add to t h e record any portions of the state court papers, including transcripts. Given t h e limited record, it is impossible to evaluate whether reasonable jurists would fin d it debatable that the issues raised in the petition on which the district c o u r t's ruling was solely procedural state valid claims of the denial of a c o n s t it u t io n a l right. See id. The district court did, however, address the merits of the Brady claim. Accordingly, we are more readily able to evaluate whether reasonable jurists w o u ld find that the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional r ig h t premised on Brady. The district court construed Taylor's Brady claim as a r g u in g that the State withheld, in violation of Brady, evidence consisting of s u r v e illa n c e tape(s). The district court, apparently without access to the tape(s) o r to the trial transcript, acknowledged that the surveillance tape(s) as described a p p e a r e d to contain exculpatory evidence. The court held, based on

h a n d -w r it t e n excerpts of the trial testimony that Taylor provided, that the e v id e n c e was not suppressed because a witness testified at trial and described t h e surveillance tape(s), providing exculpatory evidence. The court made no fin d in g s as to whether the tape was ever disclosed to the defense, the c ir c u m s t a n c e s of the disclosure, or whether the defense knew in time to e ffe c t iv e ly use the evidence at trial. See Powell v. Quarterman, 536 F.3d 325, 3 3 5 (5th Cir. 2008). Because the court determined that the evidence was not s u p p r e s s e d without access to the trial transcript or a more complete record, r e a s o n a b le jurists would debate the district court's denial of Taylor's Brady c la im . Because the problem with the merits determination is tied up with the d e fic ie n t record, the Houser rational for issuing COA, vacating, and remanding a p p lie s to the Brady claim as well. See Houser, 395 F.3d at 562. In conclusion, Taylor's motion to supplement the record is GRANTED. For t h e aforementioned reasons, COA is also GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER

Case: 09-30961

Document: 00511198155 Page: 5 No. 09-30961

Date Filed: 08/09/2010

O R D E R E D that the judgment is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the d is t r ic t court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Houser, 3 9 5 F.3d at 562; Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998) (s t a tin g that this court may grant COA, vacate judgment, and remand without r e q u ir in g further briefing in appropriate case). We express no opinion on the u lt im a te resolution of Taylor's habeas petition.

5