Barrett v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing case Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/22/2014. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

WALTER BARRETT,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 6:13-cv-483-Orl-37GJK

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Respondents.
/
ORDER
Petitioner initiated this action for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 2254 (Doc. No. 1).

Upon consideration of the petition, the Court ordered

Respondents to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.
Thereafter, Respondents filed a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in
compliance with this Court's instructions and with the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts (Doc. No. 7). Petitioner filed a reply (Doc. No.
12) to the response.
Petitioner alleges one claim for relief in his habeas petition: he “was mentally
incompetent and/or suffered from mental illness, therefore unable to defend himself or
unable to assist his lawyer in presenting a viable defense to the charged crime.” See
Doc. No. 1 at 4.

I.

Procedural History
Petitioner was charged by second amended information with burglary while

armed with a firearm (count one) and aggravated assault (count two). Petitioner was
found competent to proceed to trial, and a jury found Petitioner guilty as charged. The
trial court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of the crimes and sentenced him to
imprisonment for a term of life as to count one and for a term of twenty years as to
count two, with the sentences to run consecutively. Petitioner filed a direct appeal with
the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, which affirmed per curiam.
Petitioner next filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the state trial court,
which struck sub-claims I and II of claim two with leave to amend and stayed the
remaining claims. Petitioner filed an amended petition, which the trial court struck
without prejudice.
Petitioner then filed a second amended habeas petition and a motion to
dismiss/motion for postconviction relief. The trial court entered an order denying the
second amended habeas petition and the motion to dismiss/motion for postconviction
relief. The state appellate court affirmed per curiam.
II.

Legal Standards
Pursuant to the AEDPA, federal habeas relief may not be granted with respect to

a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication of the claim:
(1)

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
2

(2)

resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The phrase “clearly established Federal law,” encompasses only the
holdings of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court
decision.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000).
“[S]ection 2254(d)(1) provides two separate bases for reviewing state court
decisions; the ‘contrary to’ and ‘unreasonable application’ clauses articulate
independent considerations a federal court must consider.” Maharaj v. Secretary for
Dep’t. of Corr., 432 F.3d 1292, 1308 (11th Cir. 2005). The meaning of the clauses was
discussed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Parker v. Head, 244 F.3d 831, 835
(11th Cir. 2001):
Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal court may grant the writ if the
state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United
States Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a
case differently than [the United States Supreme Court] has on a set of
materially indistinguishable facts. Under the ‘unreasonable application’
clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court
identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the United States
Supreme Court’s] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the
facts of the prisoner's case.
Even if the federal court concludes that the state court applied federal law incorrectly,
habeas relief is appropriate only if that application was “objectively unreasonable.” 1 Id.

1In

considering the “unreasonable application” inquiry, the Court must
determine “whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law was
objectively unreasonable.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 409. Whether a state court's decision
3

Finally, under § 2254(d)(2), a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if
the state court’s decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” A determination of a
factual issue made by a state court, however, shall be presumed correct, and the habeas
petitioner shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear
and convincing evidence. See Parker, 244 F.3d at 835-36; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
III.

Analysis
Petitioner alleges that he “was mentally incompetent and/or suffered from

mental illness, therefore unable to defend himself or unable to assist his lawyer in
presenting a viable defense to the charged crime.” See Doc. No. 1 at 4. This claim was
raised in Petitioner’s direct appeal.
Prior to trial, the trial court had a mental examination performed on Petitioner.
The trial court noted that the “mental examination found [Petitioner] competent to
proceed.” App. B at 115. At sentencing, Petitioner’s counsel noted that Petitioner had
been evaluated five times and that Petitioner had never been found incompetent. Id. at
376.

The trial court stated that Petitioner was “competent, he has been deemed

competent by good medical doctors, but he tends to act out whenever it is to his
advantage.” Id. at 376.

was an unreasonable application of law must be assessed in light of the record before
the state court. Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 652 (2004) (per curiam); cf. Bell v. Cone,
535 U.S. 685, 697 n. 4 (2002) (declining to consider evidence not presented to state court
in determining whether its decision was contrary to federal law).
4

The record reflects that Petitioner’s competency was considered by the trial court
on numerous occasions. He was evaluated by medical experts, and he was deemed
competent. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the trial court acted erroneously
with regard to this matter. As such, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the state
court's decision rejecting his claim was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of
the United States. Applying the AEDPA's deferential standard, this Court rejects this
claim.
Any of Petitioner's allegations not specifically addressed herein have been found
to be without merit.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) filed by Walter

Barrett is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and is directed to

close this case.
3.

This Court should grant an application for certificate of appealability only

if the Petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

5

constitutional right.2 Accordingly, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED in this
case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, this 22nd day of
May, 2014.

Copies to:
OrlP-2 5/22
Walter Barrett
Counsel of Record

2Pursuant

District Courts,

to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In the United States

The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final
order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a
certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must
state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal
the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial
does not extend the time to appeal.
6