Green v. Willams
Filing
10
ORDER AND OPINION overruling petitioner's objections 8 and adopting the 6 Final Report and Recommendation denying and dismissing the § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 7/26/14. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MONTRELL GREEN,
GDC ID # 1200165,
Petitioner,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
STANLEY WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
PRISONER HABEAS CORPUS
28 U.S.C. § 2254
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12-cv-4025-JEC
ORDER & OPINION
This case is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Final
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [6] and petitioner’s objections
[8].
The Magistrate Judge recommends that petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [1] be denied, this
action be dismissed, and a certificate of appealability be denied.
(R&R [6] at 14.)
The district court must “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made” and “may accept,
reject,
or
modify
[the R&R],
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
in
whole
or
in
part . . . .”
28
Portions of the R&R to which no objection is
made are reviewed only for clear error.
Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208
Fed. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)(per curiam).
Petitioner objects to the R&R as to all four grounds of his
petition.
In ground one, petitioner claims that the trial court
should have suppressed his statement to police as involuntary.
[6] at 8.)
AO 72A
(Rev.8/8
2)
(R&R
The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the statement
was voluntary, and the Magistrate Judge determined that the court’s
conclusion
is
(1)
neither
contrary
to,
nor
an
unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law and (2) not based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts.
(Id. at 8-9.)
The
Magistrate Judge explained that the court considered petitioner’s
“characteristics, including his age and actions, and the details of
the interrogation, including the administration of Miranda1 rights,
the offers . . . to consult with a parent, and the decision to charge
at the end of the interview.”
(Id. at 9.)
Petitioner objects that (1) he has a low level of education, (2)
his mother would have known “what was best,” and (3) he was afraid
and did not know that he could decline to speak to police as a
witness.
(Pet’r’s Obj. [8] at 2.)
Those objections do not alter the
totality of circumstances that the Georgia Supreme Court considered,
and they do not satisfy the standard for federal habeas corpus
relief.
Petitioner also asks this Court to review five cases,2 but
those cases do not assist petitioner because they are not United
States Supreme Court cases.
1
(See R&R [6] at 6-7.)
The Magistrate
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
2
Petitioner cites West v. United States, 399 F.2d 467 (5th Cir.
1968); Crawford v. State, 240 Ga. 321 (1977); Williams v. State, 238
Ga. 298 (1977); and Bussey v. State, 144 Ga. App. 875 (1978).
(Pet’r’s Obj. [8] at 2.)
Petitioner also mentions “Franklin v.
State” but does not give a citation. (Id.)
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/8
2)
Judge correctly determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas
relief on ground one.
Petitioner’s objections as to grounds two, three, and four
merely repeat arguments in his petition. (See Pet’r’s Obj. [8] at 23; R&R [6] at 9-13.)
Furthermore, petitioner fails to address the
Magistrate Judge’s determination that a portion of ground three and
all of ground four are procedurally defaulted.
The
Court
finds
that
the
Magistrate
Judge
(R&R [6] at 4-6.)
properly
considered
petitioner’s arguments and correctly determined that petitioner is
not entitled to habeas relief on grounds two, three, and four.
It is hereby Ordered that the Court OVERRULES petitioner’s
objections [8] and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R [6] DENYING the
§ 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [1], DISMISSING this
action, and DENYING a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk shall
close this case.
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of July, 2014.
/s/ Julie E. Carnes
JULIE E. CARNES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/8
2)
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?