Taylor v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 21

ORDER that 15 Amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Antuan Antonio Taylor is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.Petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 8/28/2013. (TKW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ANTUAN ANTONIO TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 6:12-cv-460-Orl-31DAB

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Respondents.

ORDER
Petitioner initiated this action for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Upon consideration of the amended petition (Doc. No. 15), the Court ordered
Respondents to show cause why the relief sought in the amended petition should not be
granted.

Thereafter, Respondents filed a response to the amended petition in

compliance with this Court’s instructions and with the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases for the United States District Courts (Doc. No. 18). Although Petitioner was given an
opportunity to file a reply, he has not done so.
Petitioner alleges one claim for relief, challenging the constitutionality of section
893.13, Florida Statutes, based on the reasoning in Shelton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 802 F.
Supp. 2d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2011).1

1In

For the following reasons, the petition for writ of

Shelton, the district court determined that due to an amendment of the statute
in 2002, which eliminated the mens rea as an element of the statute, section 893.13,
Florida Statutes, was facially unconstitutional. 802 F. Supp. 2d at 1302-06.

habeas corpus is denied.
I.

Procedural History
According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of trafficking in cocaine on

July 18, 2003 (Doc. No. 1 at 1).2
term of imprisonment. Id.
affirmed per curiam.

The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a fifteen-year

Petitioner appealed, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal

Id. at 2. On August 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to correct

sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure in which
he challenged his sentence based on the ruling in Shelton.
denied the motion. Id.
II.

Id. at 4. The trial court

Petitioner did not appeal.

Analysis
To obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254, Petitioner must show “that the state court

decision adjudicating his claims . . . . was contrary to or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent . . . .” Philmore v. McNeil,
575 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d).
Petitioner claims that the trial court erred when it convicted and sentenced him
pursuant to section 893.13, Florida Statutes, because that statute was found to be
unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in
Shelton.

Petitioner’s challenge to the legality of his conviction and sentence is

2An

appendix has not been filed in this action; however, the petition may be
resolved without an appendix. The facts set forth in this Order are derived from the
petition and documents attached to the petition.
2

foreclosed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Shelton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of
Corr., 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2012), in which the appellate court reversed the district
court’s decision.

Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his claim. See Collins

v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 507 F. App=x 915, 916 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirming the dismissal of a
habeas petition based on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Shelton); Johnson v. Sec’y,
Dep’t of Corr., No. 6:12-cv-572-Orl-19DAB, 2012 WL 6522750, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14,
2012) (holding the petitioner’s claim was foreclosed by Shelton).
Additionally, other courts have held that section 893.13 is not unconstitutional.
See United States v. Bunton, No. 8:10-cr-327-T-30EAJ, 2011 WL 5080307, at *9 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 26, 2011); State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012) (upholding the constitutionality
of section 893.13, Florida Statutes). Petitioner does not cite to any Supreme Court
precedent which has held to the contrary.

Consequently, Petitioner cannot

demonstrate that the state court’s denial of his claim was contrary to, or resulted in an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
claim is denied pursuant to ' 2254(d).
Any of Petitioner=s allegations not specifically addressed herein have been found
to be without merit.
IV.

Certificate of Appealability
A prisoner seeking to appeal a district court's final order denying his petition

for writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal but must obtain a
certificate of appealability (“COA”).

28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(1); Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S.
3

180 (2009).

“A [COA] may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(2).

To make such

a showing, petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Tennard v. Dretke,
542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) or, that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.”

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003).

Petitioner has not made the requisite showing in these circumstances. The Court will
deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Antuan

Antonio Taylor (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
2.

Petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 28th day of August, 2013.

Copies to:
OrlP-3 8/28
Counsel of Record
4

Antuan Antonio Taylor

5