Bell v. Fisher

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 9 Report and Recommendations Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 6/3/19 (PKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY LAVON BELL
V.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-586-DPJ-FKB

COMMISSIONER MARSHALL L.
FISHER, MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS

RESPONDENT

ORDER
This habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) [9] of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Judge Ball
recommended denial of Petitioner Timothy Lavon Bell’s Petition [1], in which he asserts two
grounds related to the fact that he was tried before a jury in prison garb. Bell challenges the
constitutionality of trying him in prison garb (ground one), as well as his trial counsel’s
performance in failing to object to his appearance in prison garb at trial (ground two). As to
ground one, Judge Ball found that the Mississippi Court of Appeals’s resolution of the issue was
not contrary to federal law. On ground two, Judge Ball concluded that Bell failed to show the
prejudice required to establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Bell filed a brief Objection [12] to the R&R. As to ground one, Bell makes the correct
observation that ordinarily, “an accused should not be compelled to go to trial in prison or jail
clothing because of the possible impairment of the presumption [of innocence] so basic to the
adversary system.” Obj. [12] at 2 (citing Brooks v. Texas, 381 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1967)). But he
also admits that “nothing in the record here warrants a conclusion that Bell was compelled to
stand trial in jail clothes.” Id. Indeed, Bell did not object at trial to his clothing.

Under applicable federal law “the failure to make an objection to the court as to being
tried in [prison] clothes . . . is sufficient to negate the presence of compulsion necessary to
establish a constitutional violation.” Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512–13 (1976). And
based on Estelle, the Mississippi Court of Appeals found no constitutional violation. Bell v.
State, 168 So. 3d 1151, 1153 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). Because that holding was not an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, habeas relief on this ground is
denied.
Turning to ground two, Bell contends that trial counsel’s failure to object to Bell being
tried in prison clothes “permitted impermissible factors to come into play.” Obj. [12] at 3. But
as to the dispositive prejudice prong, Bell—through counsel—says only the following:
“Coupled with the no known sound or logical trial strategy to have a client appear before a jury
in prison clothes, the required prejudice prong of Strickland . . . must be pique with the influence
of the prison clothing.” Id. Assuming Bell meant to suggest that prejudice should be presumed
under these circumstances, Bell cites no authority for that argument, and the Court is unaware of
any. See Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 695–96 (2002) (delineating “three situations implicating
the right to counsel that involve[] circumstances ‘so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost
of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified’”).
Absent a showing that prejudice is presumed, the Court agrees with Judge Ball that the
evidence was overwhelming. The jury convicted Bell on two counts of selling drugs, both of
which occurred in controlled undercover purchases by confidential informants who testified at
trial. Among other things, the jury saw video of the transactions. Because Bell failed to show
prejudice under Strickland, habeas relief on ground two is likewise denied.

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [9] as the
opinion of the Court and denies Bell’s Petition [1]. A separate judgment will be entered in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 3rd day of June, 2019.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3