Lyde v. Kennedy

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 12 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, Lyde's objections are overruled. Lyde's petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is denied. The Clerk shall close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 6/11/2014. (ca)

3 the Wniteb Statto )itrict Court
for the boutbern flitritt of Qeorgia
PrunobaithOtmoion
HARRY TRUMAN LYDE,
Petitioner,
CV 213-60

VS.

KATHLEEN KENNEDY,
Respondent.

ORDER

After an independent and de novo review of the record, the
undersigned concurs with the ultimate result of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Petitioner Harry
Lyde has filed objections. In his objections, Petitioner
asserts that, although the Magistrate Judge noted that he had
not exhausted his Fourteenth Amendment claim, the Magistrate
Judge "inexplicably did find that 'The Georgia Court of Appeals
determined that, under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the
Georgia Constitution, Lyde was not absent from a critical stage
of the proceedings against him.'" Dkt. No. 14, at 6 (citing
Dkt. No. 12, at 8). The Court agrees that Lyde is procedurally
barred from bringing this claim, but will clarify on what basis.

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

1

The Magistrate Judge cites the doctrine of procedural
default as erecting a bar to Lyde's habeas claim. Although the
doctrine's application in federal court is usually wrought from
a state court's prior invocation, a federal court may apply the
doctrine even if the claim has not been raised in state court
where "it is obvious the unexhausted claim now would be
procedurally barred in state court." Baker v. Holt, 178 F.
App'x 928, 930 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). An inquiry into
whether the claim is now procedurally defaulted is unnecessary,
however, as it is clear that the claim has not been raised in
state court and therefore is unexhausted. Heidler v. Chatman
No. CV 611-109, 2014 WL 725985, at *4 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2014)
(stating that exhaustion requires a petitioner to "fairly
present" a claim in state court and cite federal law in
support). His enumeration of error on the basis of ineffective
assistance of counsel in waiving Lyde's right to be present was
briefed solely on Georgia law. Dkt. No. 7-2, at 20-37. Without
any fair presentation and exhaustion, Petitioner cannot be
granted relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) (1)
Lyde's contention that he raised a Fourteenth Amendment
claim and that such claim was decided by the Georgia Court of
Appeals has no basis in the record. Although the Georgia Court
of Appeals described the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee for a
defendant to be present at critical stages of his criminal
2
AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

prosecution, the court decided the claim only '[a]s defined by
the Supreme Court of Georgia." Lyde v. State, 311 Ga. App. 512,
515(1) (2011). The actual analysis was conducted pursuant only
to state law. Therefore, there was no exhaustion of his federal
claim, and the Court cannot grant relief.'
In addition, Lyde fails to present the Court with any valid
argument that the Georgia Court of Appeals' determination of his
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims was contrary to or an
unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984). The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's
Strickland analysis and rejects Petitioner's argument that the
state court's determination was an unreasonable application of
federal law.
Lyde's objections are OVERRULED.

The Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court
as modified herein. Lyde's petition for writ of habeas corpus,
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is DENIED.

The Clerk of

Court shall close the case.

Even if the claim was properly exhausted based on a determination that the
Georgia Court of Appeals actually decided it, the state decision would
deserve deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and the Court would find no
basis in granting relief on the claim's merits.
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3

SO ORDERED, this 11TH day of June, 2014.

LISA GODBEY OOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)