Edwards v. Noe et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the magistrate judges report and recommendation and Mr. Edwards objections, the court OVERRULES Mr. Edwards objections, ADOPTS the ma gistrate judges findings, and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, the court WILL DENY Mr. Edwards § 2254 petition. And because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, the court WILL DENY a certificat e of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 48485 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court will enter a separate order consistent with this opinion. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 7/18/2019. (KEK)
FILED
2019 Jul-18 AM 09:32
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
CARLTON RAYMAN EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
v.
STEVE MARSHALL, Alabama
Attorney General, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 7:17-cv-00571-ACA-JHE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carlton Raymond Edwards, through counsel, filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Mr. Edwards challenges his 2010
conviction in Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court for manslaughter. (Id. at 1). On
April 23, 2019, the magistrate judge to whom the case was referred entered a report
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the court deny Mr. Edwards’
§ 2254 petition. (Doc. 10). Mr. Edwards filed timely objections to the report and
recommendation. (Doc. 15).
Most of Mr. Edwards’ objections repeat arguments that he presented in his
§ 2254 petition and that the magistrate judge already addressed in the report and
recommendation.
After carefully reviewing the record, the report and
recommendation, and the objections, the court finds that the report and
recommendation correctly resolved those arguments and OVERRULES those
objections without further discussion.
The court will, however, address
Mr. Edwards’ remaining objections at more length.
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Failing to Request a
Pretrial Immunity Hearing
Mr. Edwards contends that he established prejudice from trial counsel’s
failure to request a pretrial immunity hearing because, without such a hearing
counsel lost “an important opportunity to get the statements of various witnesses
under oath to further effectively challenge them at trial.” (Doc. 15 at 6).
The undisputed testimony at trial established that Mr. Edwards and
Mr. Spencer got into an argument, leading to Mr. Edwards shooting Mr. Spencer.
(See Doc. 10 at 2–4). Mr. Edwards has not alleged how the sworn testimony at the
pretrial immunity hearing would have differed from the sworn testimony at trial in
a way that would have a substantial likelihood of changing the result of the trial. See
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011) (“The likelihood of a different result
must be substantial, not just conceivable.”); (see Doc. 15 at 6; see also Doc. 1 at 54).
The court cannot accept “conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics.” Tejada
v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551, 1559 (11th Cir. 1991).
OVERRULES this objection.
2
Accordingly, the court
B.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Failing to Interview the
Medical Examiner Prior to Trial
Mr. Edwards contends that the magistrate judge improperly focused on
whether interviewing the medical examiner before trial would have changed the
manner of Mr. Spencer’s death, but his claim actually alleges that trial counsel failed
to properly prepare for trial by interviewing the medical examiner, as a result of
which he was surprised by the medical examiner’s testimony about Mr. Edwards
possibly causing injuries to Mr. Spencer’s head and neck during the fight. (Doc. 15
at 11–14).
Even assuming that trial counsel’s failure to interview the medical examiner
amounted to deficient performance, Mr. Edwards has not established prejudice. He
asserts that because trial counsel was surprised by the medical examiner’s testimony
about the injuries to Mr. Spencer’s head and neck, counsel “did not have any rebuttal
other than trying to argue the marks could have been caused by a chain Spencer was
wearing . . . and by Mr. Spencer’s head striking the wall.” (Doc. 15 at 13). But he
does not allege what other tactic or line of questioning counsel might have pursued
with the benefit of further investigation, or how that unspecified line of questioning
would have had a substantial likelihood of changing the outcome of the case. See
Harrington, 562 U.S. at 112. The court cannot rely on Mr. Edwards’ conclusory and
speculative allegation of prejudice. See Tejada, 941 F.2d at 1559. Accordingly, the
court OVERRULES this objection.
3
C.
Ineffective Assistance for Failing to Obtain Sworn and
Unparaphrased Witness Statements
In his objection to the report and recommendation’s treatment of this claim,
Mr. Edwards appears to request discovery so that he can prove the existence of the
statements at the root of this claim. (Doc. 15 at 18–19). However, Mr. Edwards has
never made a formal discovery request from this court, instead asking, in a footnote,
for the court to order production of the statements. (See Doc. 1 at 54 n.15).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, a party requesting discovery must
“serve on any other party a request” for discovery.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
Mr. Edwards has not done so, and the court does not find an informal request made
in a footnote to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or
the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. See Rule 6(b), Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases. The court OVERRULES this objection.
D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Sentencing
Mr. Edwards contends that the court should review this ineffective assistance
claim de novo because no state court has adjudicated the actual claim that he
presented; he asserts that each court misconstrued his claim. (Doc. 15 at 19–22).
The record refutes this objection. Mr. Edwards’s claim is that trial counsel
was ineffective for continuing to represent him at sentencing even though
Mr. Edwards had fired him. (See Doc. 1 at 55 & n.16; see also Doc. 15 at 20). The
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals rejected that exact claim. (See Doc. 4-26 at 15–
4
16 (“Edwards argues that his counsel was ineffective for having represented him at
his sentencing hearing after he had been discharged . . . . Edwards insists that he did
not ask for counsel’s help and that he had lost faith in counsel’s ability. . . . [T]here
was no indication of ineffective assistance by Edward’s [sic] trial counsel.”)). Thus,
de novo review is not appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); cf. Bester v. Warden,
836 F.3d 1331, 1336 (11th Cir. 2016). The magistrate judge applied the correct
standard in reviewing the state court’s adjudication of Mr. Edwards’ claim. The
court OVERRULES this objection.
E.
Conclusion
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
Mr. Edwards’ objections, the court OVERRULES Mr. Edwards’ objections,
ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings, and ACCEPTS his recommendation.
Accordingly, the court WILL DENY Mr. Edwards’ § 2254 petition. And because
the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, the
court WILL DENY a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases.
The court will enter a separate order consistent with this opinion.
5
DONE and ORDERED this July 18, 2019.
_________________________________
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?