Hammonds v. Estes et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/11/2014. (AVC)
2014 Mar-11 PM 04:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CARL WAYNE HAMMONDS,
DEWAYNE ESTES, Warden; and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
CASE NO. 5:13-cv-01604-RDP-PWG
On February 19, 2014, the Magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation
concluding that this action for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(“Petition”) by Petitioner, Carl Wayne Hammonds (“Hammonds”), is due to be dismissed as
successive. On March 4, 3014, Hammonds filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. # 21). As he has in previous filings, Hammonds objects on the ground that the state court
lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him regarding one of the counts of which he was found
guilty. (Id.). Hammonds’s objections are addressed, in turn, below.
Hammonds was convicted of two counts of cocaine trafficking.
The counts were
consolidated for trial, but bore separate case numbers: 88-435 and 88-436. On June 29, 1988,
Hammonds was sentenced (1) to fifteen years on count # 88-436, and (2) to life imprisonment on
count # 88-435 by operation of the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act. (Doc. # 17 at 22, 30 ).1
Hammonds contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him on count
Hammonds’s previous felony convictions were for rape, robbery, and burglary. (Doc. #
17 at 15).
# 88-435 due to a faulty indictment.
Although Hammonds styles his Petition as invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241, it undoubtedly
challenges his state court conviction and sentencing. Accordingly, the court will treat the Petition
as one brought under § 2254. See Anotonelli v. Warden, 542 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2008)
(petitioner could not avoid procedural hurdles of § 2254 by labeling petition as one under § 2241).
As explained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Hammonds has previously
challenged his convictions via § 2254 petitions. He has not obtained permission from the Eleventh
Circuit to bring this successive petition.
In fact, when ordered to provide such an order,
Hammonds’s response implied that no such order exists. (See Doc. # 19) (submitting newly-filed
application to file second or successive petition). Because Hammonds has previously challenged his
convictions, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petition unless and until Hammonds obtains
permission to do so from the Eleventh Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly,
Hammonds’s substantive objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
Next, Hammonds objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny a certificate of
appealability. According to Hammonds, because he invokes § 2241, he is not required to obtain a
certificate of appealability to appeal. If the Petition actually invoked § 2241, Hammonds would be
correct. However, as explained above, the Petition is in reality a § 2254 petition, which is subject
to the certificate of appealability requirements. See Anotonelli, 542 F.3d at 1351 Accordingly,
Hammonds’s objections relating to the certificate of appealability are OVERRULED.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, the court
is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and
his recommendation is ACCEPTED. To the extent that the Hammonds’s filing of March 4, 2014
(Doc. # 21), is construed as interposing objections to the Report and Recommendation, such
objections are hereby OVERRULED. To the extent that Hammonds’s filing (Doc. #18) is
construed as a motion, it is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is
due to be denied and dismissed. A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this
day of March, 2014.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
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?