Fletcher v. State of Florida

Filing 62

ORDER. Petitioner's Certificate of Appealability is DENIED re 61 USCA Order. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 5/12/2020. See attached document for full details. (apz) Modified to reflect order is an opinion per chambers on 5/14/2020 (mr1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-cv-61733-BLOOM/Reid
CLIFFORD CHARLES FLETCHER,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a limited remand from the Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit that directed this Court to consider whether a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) is appropriate with respect to the denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment, ECF No. [52].
Petitioner initially filed his § 2254 petition on August 29, 2017, ECF No. [1], and
ultimately, on May 30, 2019, Petitioner filed his operative, second amended § 2254 petition. ECF
No. [41]. On October 31, 2019, the Honorable Lisette M. Reid issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied on the merits, that the requested
evidentiary hearing be denied, and that a certificate of appealability be denied and the case be
closed. ECF No. [47] at 33 (“Report”). The Court adopted the Report in full on December 4, 2019,
after Petitioner failed to timely file any objections and denied the petition without the issuance of
a COA. ECF No. [50].
On December 26, 2019, Petitioner filed his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, ECF No.
[52], which the Court subsequently denied as an improper attempt to relitigate matters previously

Case No. 17-cv-61733-BLOOM/Reid
raised, ECF No. [56] (“Order on the Rule 59(e) Motion”). On May 1, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit
remanded the case on a limited basis for this Court to determine whether to issue a COA as to the
denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Clifford Fletcher v. State of Fla., No.
20-10624-G (Apr. 30, 2020), ECF No. [61].
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1) provides that an appeal may
not proceed unless a COA is issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Under Rule 11(a)
of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny
a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”
“Because the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion constitutes a ‘final order’ in a state
habeas proceeding . . . a COA is required[.]” Perez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t Corr., 711
F.3d 1263, 1264 (11th Cir. 2013). 28 U.S.C. § 2253 provides that a COA may issue
“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” The exact standard for issuance of a COA, however, depends
upon whether the underlying motion was denied upon substantive or procedural
grounds. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a district court
has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits . . . petitioner must demonstrate
that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. By contrast, when a district court has
rejected a claim on procedural grounds, “a COA should issue when the prisoner
shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Id.
Read v. United States, No. 2:17-cv-322-FtM-38MRM, 2019 WL 625554, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb.
14, 2019).
In his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Petitioner argued that the Court erred in
denying his five claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which resulted in manifest errors of
law and fact. See generally ECF No. [52]. In adopting Judge Reid’s Report, the Court rejected
each of Petitioner’s five claims of ineffective assistance of counsel1 for his failure to satisfy either

Petitioner raised the following five claims in his petition: Claim 1 – counsel “was ineffective for failing
to object or file a motion to suppress DNA that was illegally obtained from Petitioner”; Claim 2 – counsel
“was ineffective for failing to object to the factual basis for Petitioner’s plea”; Claim 3 – counsel “was
ineffective for waiving Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial”; Claim 4 – counsel “was ineffective for failing
to call or present the testimony of an exculpatory witness”; and Claim 5 – counsel “was ineffective for
1

2

Case No. 17-cv-61733-BLOOM/Reid
prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984). See generally ECF No. [47].
Specifically, on claims 1 and 5 that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate
and move to suppress DNA evidence and for failing to object to the unreliability of this DNA
evidence, the Court determined that Petitioner failed to demonstrate any error by counsel for failing
to object to DNA evidence not yet linked to Petitioner, he failed to establish that this evidence
would have been suppressed at a suppression hearing or that there was any factual basis for the
alleged break in the chain of custody, and he failed to establish that he would have proceeded to
trial but for counsel’s alleged errors, given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Id. at 20-25.
On claim 2 that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that there was no factual basis for
Petitioner’s plea, the Court noted that the state court found a factual basis for Petitioner’s plea
based on his counsel’s stipulation and further concluded that the police reports established the
elements of the charged crimes. Id. at 18-20. Likewise, the Court determined that, because
“Petitioner decided to forego his right to a trial to contest the State’s evidence against him and
entered a guilty plea[,] . . . he is bound by the factual representations made in the officers’ police
reports, which were used to provide the factual basis for his guilty plea.” Id. at 20. Additionally,
on claim 3 that trial counsel was ineffective for waiving Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial, the
Court rejected Petitioner’s arguments regarding Florida’s speedy trial rights as a basis for federal
habeas relief and further rejected any alleged deficiency or prejudice because Petitioner’s
constitutional speedy trial rights had not been violated at the time of his speedy demand, he
presented no evidence that the State would have been unable to bring him to trial within the
required time period, and concluded that, given the overwhelming evidence against him, there was
failing to argue that the DNA evidence in Petitioner’s case was unreliable due to tampering and a break in
the chain of custody.” ECF No. [47] at 2.

3

Case No. 17-cv-61733-BLOOM/Reid
no basis to suggest that Petitioner would have proceeded to trial. Id. at 27-28. Finally, on claim 4
that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call an exculpatory witness, the
Court held that, by entering into the plea, Petitioner waived his right to present any defenses and
indicated to his attorney that no further investigation or challenges to witness credibility were
required. Id. at 29-30. Moreover, the Court concluded that the alleged exculpatory witness’s
testimony did not exonerate Petitioner, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence against
him, and nothing in the record suggested that Petitioner would have proceeded to trial if his counsel
had conducted additional investigations. Id. at 30-31.
Further, the Court’s Order on the Rule 59(e) Motion denied Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment because his arguments improperly attempted to relitigate the matters previously
raised and rejected. ECF No. [56].2 Reasonable jurists would not find this Court’s conclusions
debatable or wrong here. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Because Petitioner did not make a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and because he failed to present a basis for this
Court’s reconsideration of its earlier determination that he was not entitled to a COA, the Court
concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to a COA from the denial of his Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment.

In rejecting Petitioner’s arguments in his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, the Court noted each issue
that was improperly being relitigated:
2

(1) [O]n claims 1 and 5, Petitioner argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to or move to suppress the DNA evidence taken from him, compare ECF No. [41]
at 6, 13; ECF No. [42] at 5, 9; ECF No. [46] at 2-3, 6-7, with ECF No. [52] at 3-5; (2) on
claim 2, Petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the factual
basis for Petitioner’s plea, compare ECF No. [41] at 8; ECF No. [42] at 6, with ECF No.
[52] at 6; (3) on claim 3, Petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective for waiving
Petitioner’s speedy trial rights, compare ECF No. [41] at 9; ECF No. [42] at 7; ECF No.
[46] at 3-4, with ECF No. [52] at 7; and (4) on claim 4, Petitioner argues that counsel was
ineffective for failing to present the testimony of an exculpatory witness, compare ECF
No. [41] at 11; ECF No. [42] at 8; ECF No. [46] at 4-6, with ECF No. [52] at 8.
ECF No. [56] at 2.

4

Case No. 17-cv-61733-BLOOM/Reid
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Petitioner’s Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Clerk’s Office of
the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 12, 2020.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Clifford Charles Fletcher
684215
Charlotte Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
33123 Oil Well Road
Punta Gorda, FL 33955

5