Conrad v. Culliver et al (INMATE3)
ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Mr. Conrad's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment will be entered with a separate document. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 5/7/2010. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION R O B E R T THOMAS CONRAD, P e titio n e r, v. GRANT CULLIVER, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 1:08-CV-32-WKW
ORDER T h e Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. # 20) re c o m m e n d in g that Robert Thomas Conrad's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. # 1) b e denied. As Mr. Conrad has filed an Objection (Doc. # 23) to the R&R, the court reviews th o s e portions objected to de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Although Mr. Conrad's original petition asserted numerous bases for relief, he objects to the R&R's treatment of only two of them. His first objection concerns his claim that his tria l counsel was ineffective in failing to object to a jury instruction regarding the degree of c o rro b o ra ti o n required to convict a defendant on the basis of a co-defendant's testimony. (R&R at 20-22; Objection at 1-2.) In Mr. Conrad's view, the jury instruction given allowed th e jury to infer that he could be convicted on the basis of co-defendant testimony alone, in c o n tr a v e n tio n of Alabama law. The R&R found that, even assuming an erroneous jury in s tru c tio n had been given, any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because th e co-defendant's testimony was corroborated by sufficient other evidence of Mr. Conrad's
guilt. (R&R at 22.) In particular, the R&R noted that a bullet fired from the robbery victim's g u n was removed from Mr. Conrad's body and presented to the jury as evidence. (R&R at 2 2 .) Mr. Conrad acknowledges that the doctrine of harmless error applies, but appears to a rg u e that it should not bar his claim here because the bullet was "illegally seized" from his b o d y. (Objection at 2.) Indeed, the issue of "illegally seized" bullet is the basis for second prong of Mr. C o n ra d 's Objection to the R&R. He contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in not o b je c tin g to the admission of the bullet, which was obtained via a subpoena from the District A tto rn e y rather than by warrant, as Mr. Conrad claims was required. (Objection at 3.) The R & R did not address this claim on the merits, finding that it was procedurally defaulted by Mr. Conrad's failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal. (R&R at 32-33.) The Objection d o e s not explain why this procedural bar does not apply, except to assert that Mr. Conrad is e n title d to the exception for actually innocent petitioners. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 3 2 0 (1995). For the reasons given in the R&R, the court finds that Mr. Conrad has made no s h o w in g of actual innocence, and his claims regarding the seizure of the bullet remain p ro c e d u ra lly defaulted. Accordingly, there was also no error with respect to the jury in s tru c tio n issue, as the admission of the bullet corroborated the testimony of Mr. Conrad's c o -d e f e n d a n t, and rendered any error harmless. F o r the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that: (1 ) The R&R (Doc. # 20) is ADOPTED;
(2) Mr. Conrad's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) is DENIED; and, (3 ) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. F in a l judgment will be entered with a separate document. D O N E this 7th day of May, 2010.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?