STANLEY v. CREWS
Filing
28
ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendation. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 4/10/2012. The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Scott A. Stanley, challenging the judgment in case number 2004-CF-2759, imposed by the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied. (kdm)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
SCOTT A. STANLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 4:09cv162-SPM/CAS
SECRETARY, DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
____________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation dated November 28, 2011. Doc. 24. Petitioner filed an
objection, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Doc. 25.
Despite the objection, I have determined that the report and recommendation is
correct and should be adopted.
The objection raised by Petitioner fails to show that the denial of relief by
the state court was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
clearly established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination
of facts. Moreover, there is a lack of consistency in the legal and factual
Page 2 of 3
positions taken by Petitioner.1 The report and recommendation does an
excellent job of going through each issue and explaining why relief must be
denied. Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.
The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 24) is
ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.
2.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Scott A. Stanley,
challenging the judgment in case number 2004-CF-2759, imposed by the Second
Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, is denied.
1
For example, regarding the concession of guilt, Petitioner’s trial
testimony was that he placed Berry’s number on auto dial (doc. 25 at 5) but he
also states that he maintained his innocence and provided counsel with this
“hypothetical explanation” for the calls (doc. 25 at 38). Petitioner complains that
defense counsel conceded his guilt by mentioning the calls in his opening
statement (doc. 25 at 84), yet Petitioner acknowledges that if he made the calls
though auto dial for the purpose of preventing Berry from calling him, he should
not be guilty of aggravated stalking (doc. 25 at 5). Indeed, defense counsel’s
opening statement proceeded in this vein. As quoted in the Report and
Recommendation, defense counsel explained in his opening statement:
And he puts the phone on call-back and he called back several
times. Nobody ever picks up the phone after that. . . . [B]ut was this
an aggravated stalking? No. We’re talking about phone calls on
call-back and nothing more, and the scenario in which Mr. Stanley
was under the impression that she had lifted the injunction. That’s
what this case is about.
Doc. 24 at 18. The state court correctly recognized that defense counsel’s
opening statement was not a concession of guilt and that defense counsel made
reasonable arguments that Petitioner was not guilty of aggravated stalking given
the circumstances of the situation. Doc. 24 at 13-14, 17-18.
CASE NO. 4:09cv162-SPM/CAS
Page 3 of 3
3.
A certificate of appealability is denied.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2012.
s/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
Senior United States District Judge
CASE NO. 4:09cv162-SPM/CAS
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?