Felton v. Jones (INMATE 3)

Filing 18

ORDER: it is ORDERED that: 1) The 14 Objections are OVERRULED; 2) The Magistrate Judge's 13 Recommendation is ADOPTED; and 3) The 1 Petition is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice; A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/26/2018. (alm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MORRIS FELTON, #292689,
Petitioner,
v.
KENNETH JONES,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 2:16cv87-WHA
)
[WO]
)
)
)
ORDER

This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.
#13), the Petitioner’s Objections thereto (Doc. #14), and the Respondent’s Response to the
Objections (Doc. #17).
Upon an independent review of the record and consideration of the
Recommendation, the Objections to the Recommendation, and the Respondent’s Response
to the Objections, the court finds the Objections to be without merit.
The Petitioner has sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, challenging
convictions and sentences in the Circuit Court of Crenshaw County, Alabama. The
Petitioner challenges his conviction as a violation of the right to confrontation under the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.
In his Objections to the Recommendation, the Petitioner states that he disagrees with
the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals rejection of his argument that during his trial, the
victim’s out-of-court statements were improperly admitted. The Alabama Court of

Criminal Appeals rejected this argument based on its finding that the victim testified at
trial and was subject to cross-examination.
The court agrees with the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the
argument of the Respondent that the claim is procedurally defaulted and cannot proceed
on that basis. However, even assuming that his claim has not been defaulted, the Petitioner
has not shown that the state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of
the facts in light of the evidence presented, or that the presumption of correctness is
rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2), (e)(1).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Objections are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. # 13) is ADOPTED; and
3. The Petition is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 26th of March, 2018.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2