Dennis v. Headley et al (INMATE 3)
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED as follows: (1) Dennis's 16 Objections are OVERRULED. (2) The Magistrate Judge's 15 Recommendation is ADOPTED. (3) Dennis's 1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 12/7/2018. (dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
KARVIS LAMAR DENNIS, #292373, )
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOSEPH HEADLEY, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-438-WHA
(WO)
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.
# 15) and Petitioner Karvis Lamar Dennis’s objections thereto (Doc. # 16). Upon a de
novo review of the record and consideration of the Recommendation and the objections to
the Recommendation, the court finds the objections to be without merit and due to be
overruled.
Petitioner Dennis was convicted of murder. He argued self-defense at trial. He
raised three claims for § 2254 relief. First, Dennis argued that his right to a fair trial before
an impartial jury was violated when the trial court refused to grant a mistrial after an
emotional outburst by a spectator in the courtroom gallery during testimony by the victim’s
mother. Second, Dennis argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were
violated when the trial court refused to grant a new trial after learning a juror failed to
disclose during voir dire that she was familiar with the area and people where the crime
occurred, and that the juror felt a “connection” with the deceased and was influenced by
the spectator outburst in the gallery. Finally, Dennis argued that his equal protection rights
were violated because the court records did not include a transcript of the spectator
outburst.
In his Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found that habeas relief was not
warranted on Dennis’s claims regarding (1) the spectator outburst and (2) the juror’s
alleged misrepresentations during voir dire, because the state court adjudications of the
claims were not contrary to or unreasonable applications of United States Supreme Court
precedent and the state court factual findings regarding the claims were not unreasonable
in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. See Doc. # 15 at 11–18.
This court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning in denying relief on these claims
and finds that Dennis’s objections are not responsive to the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning
and conclusions.
The Magistrate Judge found that Dennis’s claim regarding the lack of a transcript
of the spectator outburst was procedurally defaulted for purposes of federal habeas review
because it was not properly exhausted in the state courts, and Dennis demonstrated no basis
for excusing the default to allow this court to review the claim. Doc. # 15 at 4–8. In
finding that Dennis did not properly exhaust this claim, the Magistrate Judge noted that
while Dennis presented the claim in a petition for writ of certiorari with the Alabama
Supreme Court during direct review, Dennis did not raise the claim until he filed his
petition for writ of certiorari. Doc. # 15 at 6. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge reasoned,
the Alabama Supreme Court’s denial of Dennis’s petition for writ of certiorari did not
2
constitute a review of the merits of the claim, and the claim did not undergo a complete
round of the State’s established appellate review process.
Because various state
procedural reviews would bar Dennis from returning to state court to exhaust the claim,
the claim was procedurally defaulted. See Doc. # 15 at 6–7.
Dennis asserted no grounds as cause excusing his procedural default, and he made
only conclusory statements that this court’s failure to review his procedurally defaulted
claim would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Magistrate Judge found that Dennis’s
conclusory statements were insufficient to meet the standard for actual innocence in Schlup
v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), to which the miscarriage of justice standard is directly linked
and which requires a habeas petitioner to show newly discovered, reliable evidence not
presented at trial making it “more likely than not that no reasonable juror [hearing such
evidence] would have convicted [the petitioner].” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 321, 324 & 327–
28. Doc. # 15 at 8. In his objections, to support his claim of actual innocence, Dennis
argues that the State failed to present the element of intent necessary to support a murder
conviction. Doc. # 16 at 3–4. Such an argument, however, goes to the sufficiency of the
State’s evidence, and allegations going to the sufficiency of and/or weight afforded the
evidence do not constitute “new reliable evidence” regarding a petitioner’s actual
innocence.
See Rutledge v. Neilsen, 2012 WL 3778987, at *7 (M.D. Ala. 2012).
“‘[A]ctual innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.” Bousley v.
United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623–24 (1998); Doe v. Menefee, 391 F.3d 147, 162 (2nd Cir.
3
2004) (“As Schlup makes clear, the issue before [a federal district] court is not legal
innocence but factual innocence.”).
This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that Dennis’s claim
regarding the lack of a transcript of the spectator outburst was procedurally defaulted and
that Dennis failed to satisfy Schlup’s difficult standard for actual innocence to excuse the
default. Therefore, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that
Dennis’s claim regarding the record cannot be reviewed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) Dennis’s objections (Doc. # 16) are OVERRULED.
(2) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. # 15) is ADOPTED.
(3) Dennis’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. # 1) is DENIED and this
action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 7th day of December, 2018.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?