Lockley v. Tatum
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING 17 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. Further, pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 9/17/2012. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
EDUARDO L. LOCKLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
CLAY TATUM, WARDEN,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-383 (MTT)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation (Doc. 17) of United
States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle on Petitioner Eduardo L. Lockley’s Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the
Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal habeas corpus relief. The
Petitioner filed an Objection to the Recommendation.1 (Doc. 18). The Court has
reviewed the habeas petition, the Recommendation, the Petitioner’s Objection and both
the Georgia Court of Appeals and the state habeas corpus court’s records. Although
some clarification of the Recommendation is required, the ultimate conclusion reached
in the Recommendation remains the same, and the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), this Court is prohibited from granting relief with
respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings unless that
1
The Petitioner did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that no evidentiary hearing is
warranted in this case.
adjudication either: (1) resulted in a decision contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States
Supreme Court or (2) resulted in a decision based on an unreasonable determination of
the facts in light of the evidence presented. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13
(2000).
A state court decision is “contrary to” established federal law if either “(1) the
state court applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court
case law, or (2) when faced with materially indistinguishable facts, the state court
arrived at a result different from that reached in a Supreme Court case.” Putman v.
Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1241 (11th Cir. 2001). An “unreasonable application” of clearly
established federal law may occur if the state court “identifies the correct legal rule from
Supreme Court case law but unreasonably applies that rule to the facts of the
petitioner’s case.” Id. “An unreasonable application may also occur if a state court
unreasonably extends, or unreasonably declines to extend, a legal principle from
Supreme Court case law to a new context.” Id. Moreover, when a “state court’s
application of federal law is challenged, it must be shown to be not only erroneous, but
objectively unreasonable.” Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 5 (2003).
The Petitioner’s sixteen grounds for relief in his federal habeas corpus petition
were also raised in his prior state habeas corpus petition. Each of the Petitioner’s
grounds alleges that he received ineffective assistance of his final appellate counsel,
Jonathan Perry Waters. Each of these grounds for relief was considered and decided
adversely to the Petitioner by the state habeas court following an evidentiary hearing.
-2-
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must
show that counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance
prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To be
deficient, the performance must be “outside the wide range of professionally competent
assistance.” Id. at 690.
To establish prejudice under Strickland, “[i]t is not enough for the
defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the
outcome of the proceeding.” Rather, the defendant must show that there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors,
the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome.
Borden v. Allen, 646 F.3d 785, 820 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at
693-94).
The right to effective assistance of counsel applies equally to counsel on appeal
of right as it does to trial counsel. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396 (1985). The
Eleventh Circuit has held that the Strickland standard applies to ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel claims. Heath v. Jones, 941 F.2d 1126, 1130 (11th Cir. 1991). Thus,
to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a petitioner must
show that his appellate counsel’s performance was deficient and that the petitioner was
prejudiced by the performance. Id. Further, counsel cannot be found ineffective for
failing to raise every non-frivolous defense. Chandler v. U.S., 218 F.3d 1305, 1319
(11th Cir. 2000). Counsel must use his or her judgment to determine which claims and
arguments to emphasize, which may require counsel to rule out other non-frivolous
claims and arguments. Id.
-3-
The Petitioner’s first ground alleges that appellate counsel Waters was ineffective
by not moving for reconsideration after the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled. It is the
Magistrate Judge’s ruling on this claim that requires some explanation. During the
course of his state proceedings, the Petitioner had four lawyers. After trial counsel,
James Watkins, moved for new trial, he was replaced by Robert Goldberg. Before the
motion for new trial was denied, Goldberg was replaced by Leo Knight of the public
defender’s office. After the motion for new trial was denied, Jonathan Perry Waters was
appointed to represent the Petitioner on appeal.
In the direct appeal, Waters contended that trial counsel and Goldberg were
ineffective. (Doc. 7-15 at 5-6). The Georgia Court of Appeals held these claims had
been waived because they were not raised before the denial of the motion for new trial.
Although the court of appeal’s discussion is brief, it is clear that the court reasoned that
Knight could have raised those claims before the trial court denied the motion for new
trial. He did not, and therefore those claims were waived. Apparently, the Petitioner
contends that the court of appeals mistakenly thought Waters had been appointed
before the ruling on the motion for new trial. The Petitioner is wrong. Again, the basis
for the court’s ruling was that new counsel (Knight) had been appointed who had the
opportunity to raise the ineffective assistance claims. Had Waters been appointed
before the trial court ruled on the motion for new trial, he would have been in the same
position as Knight; i.e., he should have raised the claim of ineffective assistance.
Clearly, the court of appeals did not think he was in that position.
The Petitioner also contends that Waters should have moved for reconsideration
in the court of appeals because the court did not address his motion to remand for
-4-
further development of his ineffective assistance claims. As the state habeas court
found, however, when the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the ineffective assistance
claims had been waived, it implicitly ruled that remand was not appropriate. This finding
clearly was correct. Thus, the state habeas court did not unreasonably deny habeas
relief on the Petitioner’s first ground for relief.
With regard to the remaining fifteen grounds of the Petitioner, the Petitioner fails
to understand the significance of the fact that Knight was appointed before the trial court
ruled on the motion for new trial. As the Georgia Court of Appeals noted in its opinion,
one reason for appointing new counsel before that ruling, was to allow new counsel to
assert claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that could be raised in the direct
appeal. Lockley v. State, No. A06A2272 (Ga. App., Jan. 26, 2007) (Doc. 7-1 at 5).
Thus, when Knight replaced Goldberg, it was incumbent upon him to raise claims of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. When Goldberg was discharged, he had not
been ineffective because the claims for ineffective assistance of trial counsel still could
be raised. If anyone was ineffective for failing to raise claims of ineffective assistance of
Watkins and Goldberg, it was Knight because he failed to assert those claims before the
ruling on the motion for new trial. Thus, the Petitioner’s claims in this Court that Waters
was ineffective for his failure to assert ineffective assistance claims against Goldberg
simply miss the mark.
In any event, the state habeas court considered the remaining fifteen grounds on
the merits and concluded they lacked merit. The Magistrate Judge points out that
Waters adequately reviewed the record as well as the “numerous issues” Petitioner
suggested to raise on appeal. (Doc. 17 at 8). Waters testified that he focused on the
-5-
issues he believed to be more meritorious, and the Petitioner has not shown in his
Objection why the issues selected by Waters were less meritorious than the ones
Petitioner now asserts. The Petitioner also states in his Objection that the proceedings
would have been different had Waters raised more meritorious issues on appeal but
does not show that the Georgia Court of Appeals would have rendered a different
decision, particularly when these sixteen grounds were ultimately considered by the
state habeas court and denied on the merits. The Court agrees with the
Recommendation that “the state habeas court’s holdings reflect a reasonable finding of
the facts based on the record as a whole and are consistent with clearly established
federal law.” (Doc. 17 at 7).
For the reasons set forth above and in the Recommendation, the Petitioner’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. Further, pursuant to the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of September, 2012.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-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?