Higdon v. State of Alabama
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Having reviewed the materials in the record, the Court overrules Mr. Higdon's objections, adopts the magistrate judge's report, and accepts the magistrate judge's recommendation. Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Higdon's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismisses this action with prejudice. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/23/2019. (KEK)
FILED
2019 Sep-23 PM 01:53
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIC LEMONT HIGDON,
Petitioner,
v.
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:16-cv-1966-MHH-HNJ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 22, 2019, the magistrate judge filed a report in which he
recommended that the Court deny petitioner Eric Lamont Higdon’s petition for writ
of habeas corpus. (Doc. 10). On August 5, 2019, Mr. Higdon filed objections to the
report and recommendation. (Doc. 11). Mr. Higdon states that he “does not object
to the factual finding of the Report and Recommendation, pages one (1) through 15,”
but he “disputes any and all final legal conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge
regarding the issues in his Report and Recommendations.” (Doc. 11, p. 1).
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Court reviews for plain error proposed factual findings to which no objection is
made, and the Court reviews propositions of law de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993
F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure
to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an attack on appeal of the
factual findings adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or
manifest injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.
Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Mr. Higdon argues that during the appellate proceedings following his
conviction, he could not anticipate that the Alabama Supreme Court would change
the law regarding first degree sodomy by forcible compulsion. He contends that his
constitutional rights were violated when the Alabama Supreme Court applied the
change retroactively to sustain his conviction. (Doc. 11, pp. 1-2). Mr. Higdon
asserts that he had “no way or means of knowing that the [Alabama] Supreme Court
would violate” his “rights until [the Alabama Supreme Court] actually rendered its[]
decision.” (Doc. 11, p. 1). Mr. Higdon believes he properly raised his federal
constitutional challenge in his application for rehearing in the Alabama Supreme
Court. (Doc. 11, p. 1).
The Court respectfully disagrees. As the magistrate judge explained, the
State’s petition for writ of certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court gave Mr. Higdon
fair and adequate notice that the State was urging the Alabama Supreme Court to
reverse Ex parte J.A.P., 853 So. 2d 280 (Ala. 2002), and afterwards reinstate Mr.
Higdon’s conviction for first degree sodomy by compulsion. (Doc. 10, pp. 22-23).
2
Though he inaccurately identified the constitutional right that was in jeopardy, in his
brief to the Alabama Supreme Court, Mr. Higdon mentioned that it would be
unconstitutional to apply a change in the law retroactively to sustain the conviction
against him for sodomy by compulsion. But he did not indicate whether his
constitutional right was rooted in state or federal law, and he cited no constitutional
provision or case law that would alert the Alabama Supreme Court to a federal
constitutional challenge. (Doc. 7-15, p. 10; Doc. 10, pp. 23-24). Because Mr.
Higdon did not exhaust his constitutional challenge during his state court
proceedings, he may not obtain habeas relief now.1
Having reviewed the materials in the record, the Court overrules Mr. Higdon’s
objections, adopts the magistrate judge’s report, and accepts the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Higdon’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus and dismisses this action with prejudice. The Court will not issue a
certificate of appealability.
DONE this 23rd day of September, 2019.
_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The Court notes that Mr. Higdon has not challenged his conviction or sentence for 23 years for
first degree sodomy of a child less than 12 years old. He challenges only his conviction for first
degree sodomy by compulsion for which he received a 15-year sentence. Therefore, relief on his
habeas petition concerning his 15-year sentence would leave undisturbed his 23-year sentence,
which runs concurrent with the 15-year sentence. (Doc. 7-15, p. 3; Doc. 10, p. 4).
3
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?