Taylor v. Smith et al
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Denying as moot 14 Motion to expand the record filed by Eric Vandell Taylor; Overruling 13 Motion to Alter/Amend/Correct Judgment filed by Eric Vandell Taylor; Granting 10 Motion to Amend Pleadings filed by Eric Vandell Taylor; Adopting 12 Report and Recommendation (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 6/10/2013. (PJM) cc: Eric Vandell Taylor on 6/10/2013 (jam).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-2011(DSD/JJG)
Eric Vandell Taylor,
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
Michelle Smith, Warden and
MCF-Stillwater,
Respondents.
Eric Vandell Taylor, 169755, MCF-Stillwater, 970 Picket
Street North, Bayport, MN 55003, pro se.
Peter R. Marker, Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, 50
Kellogg Boulevard West, Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102,
counsel for respondents.
This matter is before the court upon the objection1 by pro se
petitioner Eric Vandell Taylor to the April 24, 2013, report and
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Based on a de
novo review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the court overrules the objection and adopts the
report and recommendation in its entirety.
1
Taylor moved “to alter or amend the judgment entered in this
case on April 24, 2013 in order to correct manifest errors of law
and fact.” ECF No. 13, at 1. Given Taylor’s pro se status, the
court construes this as an objection to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation.
BACKGROUND
The background of this action is fully set forth in the
magistrate
judge’s
summarizes
only
objection.
On August 20, 2009, Taylor was arrested and charged
with two
counts
report
those
of
and
facts
criminal
recommendation,
necessary
to
sexual conduct,
and
resolve
in
the
court
Taylor’s
violation
Minnesota Statutes § 609.342, subdivision 1(b), 1(g).
of
State v.
Taylor, No. A10-1940, 2012 WL 1149323, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr.
9, 2012).
Taylor demanded a speedy trial on September 9, 2009.
Id. at *2.
The trial was twice postponed.
The first delay resulted from
a backlog at the DNA analysis laboratory.
occurred
when
a
state
unavailable to testify.
witness
Id.
was
out
Id.
of
The second delay
the
country
and
During the delay and prior to trial,
the victim made additional allegations against Taylor. Id. On May
21, 2010, the criminal complaint was amended to include additional
incidences of sexual assault.
Id.
On May 24, 2010, Taylor was tried and convicted of one count
of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to 360 months
in prison.
Id.
Taylor appealed, arguing in part that the
conviction should be overturned based on his Sixth Amendment right
to a speedy trial.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the
conviction on April 9, 2012.
Id. at *6.
Court denied review on June 27, 2012.
2
The Minnesota Supreme
On August 16, 2012, Taylor filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus, alleging that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right
to a speedy trial.2
ECF No. 1.
DISCUSSION
The
court
reviews
the
magistrate judge de novo.
report
and
in his
of
the
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).
arguments
recommendation
objection.
Rather,
Taylor raises no new
Taylor
argues
that the
magistrate judge incorrectly balanced the factors set forth in
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).3
2
Initially, Taylor also argued that he was deprived of a
unanimous verdict, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Taylor later moved to amend his petition to remove that argument,
so as to not present a “mixed petition” containing exhausted and
non-exhausted claims.
See ECF No. 10.
The magistrate judge
recommended granting the motion to amend and analyzed only the
speedy trial claim.
3
To reach the Barker analysis, the length of the delay must
be presumptively prejudicial. United States v. Summage, 575 F.3d
864, 875 (8th Cir. 2009).
If the delay is not presumptively
prejudicial, the court may conclude that no speedy trial violation
occurred without analyzing the Barker factors. Id. It is unclear,
however, whether the delay of eight or nine months is presumptively
prejudicial. Compare United States v. Jeanetta, 533 F.3d 651, 656
(8th Cir. 2008) (“A delay approaching one year may meet the
threshold for presumptively prejudicial delay requiring application
of the Barker factors.” (citations omitted)), with United States v.
McFarland, 116 F.3d 316, 318 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Only a little over
seven months elapsed between ... indictment and trial, too brief a
delay to trigger review of [the] Sixth Amendment speedy trial
claim.” (citation omitted)).
The court need not reach this
determination, however, because even if the delay was presumptively
prejudicial, the Barker factors weigh in favor of a finding that
(continued...)
3
In analyzing a speedy trial claim under Barker, the court
balances the “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the
defendant’s
assertion
defendant.”
Id. at 530.
of
his
right,
and
prejudice
to
the
After a de novo review of the record and
the report and recommendation, the court finds that the report of
the magistrate judge correctly resolves the issue of Taylor’s
speedy trial claim.
Therefore, the objection is overruled.
Further, the court determines that Taylor has not made a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
As a result, the court does
not grant a certificate of appealability.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Petitioner’s motion to amend the pleadings [ECF No. 10]
is granted;
2.
Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment [ECF
No. 13] is construed as an objection to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation and is overruled;
3.
The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No.
12] is adopted in full;
3
(...continued)
Taylor’s speedy trial rights were not violated.
4
4.
Petitioner’s motion to expand the record [ECF No. 14] is
denied as moot; and
5.
Pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
2253,
the
court
denies
certificate of appealability.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:
June 10, 2013
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
5
a
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?