Boos v. Hall

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING the 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the Court's opinion, overruling all objections, denying the 1 Petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, denying Petitioner a COA in this case, in which Petitioner is not entitled to appeal IFP, and closing this case with final judgment to be entered in favor of Respondent. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/07/2021. (jlh)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-00082-JRH-BKE Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION DANIEL BOOS, Petitioner, CV 120-082 V. JERMAINE WHITE, Warden, Respondent. ORDER After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,(doc. no. 13), to which objections have been filed, (doc. no. 17). Petitioner does not offer any new evidence or argument that warrants deviating from the recommendation to reject all of Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims and deny the petition in its entirety. Rather Petitioner re-hashes the arguments raised in his petition and briefing, without acknowledging the double deference owed by the federal court to the state court's decision on the ineffective assistance claims. fSee doc. no. 13, pp. 15-16 (citing Harrington v. Richter. 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011) and Yarborough v. Gentrv. 540 U.S. 1,4(2003)).) As the Magistrate Judge thoroughly explained: ..."[Cjounsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment ... . [FJederal courts are to afford both the state court and the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt." Woods v. Etherton. 578 U.S.-, 136 Case 1:20-cv-00082-JRH-BKE Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3 S. Ct. 1149, 1151 (U.S. 2016){per curiam)(internal quotations and citations omitted). To summarize, for Petitioner to obtain federal habeas relief, "[t]he state court decision must be so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Id That is, if fairminded jurists could reach differing conclusions, this Court owes deference to the state court decision, and federal relief is not available. Shinn v. Kaver. 592 U.S.-, 141 S. Ct. 517, 525 (2020){per curiam)("Perhaps some jurists would share those views [of a federal appeals court weighing evidence to reverse state court rejection of a Strickland claim], but that is not the relevant standard. The question is whether a fairminded jurist could take a different view. And the answer is yes."). Put another way, "the question becomes whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland's deferential standard. Raulerson v. Warden. 928 F.3d 987, 997 (11th Cir. 2019)(citation omitted), cert, denied, 140 S. Ct. 2568(U.S. Mar. 30,2020). (Id at 16.) Petitioner strenuously argues his interpretation of the record and the alleged errors made by counsel is correct, and the state court decision considered by the Magistrate Judge in his analysis is incorrect. However, Petitioner's arguments made in hindsight, and without any consideration of whether fairminded jurists could reach differing conclusions, are insufficient to overcome the high burden in place for individuals seeking federal habeas corpus relief under the two-pronged test of Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Magistrate Judge thoroughly addressed Petitioner's claims, citing the applicable record evidence and explaining the relevant case law supporting the legal analysis that Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES all objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and DENIES the instant petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Further, a prisoner seeking relief under § 2254 must obtain a certificate of appealability ("CCA") before appealing the denial of his application for a writ of habeas 2 Case 1:20-cv-00082-JRH-BKE Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3 corpus. This Court "must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant." Rule 11(a) to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. This Court should grant a COA only if the prisoner makes a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and in consideration of the standards enunciated in Slack V. McDaniel. 529 U.S. 473, 482-84 (2000), Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a COA in this case.' Moreover, because there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and Petitioner is not entitled to appeal informa pauperis. S^ 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Upon the foregoing, the Court CLOSES this civil action and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of Respondent. SO ORDERED this "7^ day of September,2021, at Augusta, Georgia. [ALLf CHIEF JUDGE UNITE^TATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA '"If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22." Rule 11(a) to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.

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?