BEVANS v. RANSOM et al

Filing 18

ORDER THAT PETITIONER JOEL BEVANS' OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HONORABLE CRAIG M. STRAW (ECF NO. 17) ARE OVERRULED; THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE R&R (ECF NO. 16) IS ADOPTED; AND THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF NO. 1) IS DENIED. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER 28:2. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE ANITA B. BRODY ON 3/10/2025. 3/10/2025 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ahf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOEL BEVANS,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RANSOM, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 22-2823

EXPLANATION AND ORDER
On July 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge Craig M. Straw filed a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) concerning this counseled petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. ECF No. 16. He recommends that I deny relief to Petitioner Joel Bevans
because the state courts’ adjudications of the claims Bevans raises here were not
unreasonable applications of federal constitutional law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
On August 5, 2024, Bevans filed objections to the R&R’s analysis of the
sufficiency of the evidence claim (Ground One) and one of the claims he brings
asserting ineffective assistance of counsel (Ground Three). ECF No. 17. For the
reasons set out below, Bevans’s objections are overruled.
Ground One: Bevans was convicted of aggravated assault of a police
officer through an attempt to cause serious bodily injury, a violation of 18 Pa.
Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(2). He committed this offense against Philadelphia Police
Officer Christopher Culver after Culver and his partner attempted to stop the car in

1

which Bevans was traveling. Bevans emerged from that car, displaying a gun in
his right hand, and ran away from the pursuing police car. He was alleged to have
turned back, pointed his gun at Officer Culver in the vehicle, and attempted to file,
although no bullet emerged. The episode concluded with Officer Culver firing
once upon Bevans, striking him in the left back or flank area.
At trial, defense counsel suggested the officers’ account of Bevans’s
apparent attempt to shoot at Officer Culver was fabricated to justify an otherwise
excessive use of force by Culver. The defense pointed to the fact that, although
Officer Culver testified that he was prompted to fire when Bevans turned back and
pointed his gun at him, Bevans was struck by Officer Culver’s bullet in a part of
the body that would not have been exposed had Bevans still been positioned as the
officers described.
This view of the factual record undergirds Bevans’s objection here as well.
He contends that “[t]he Magistrate’s [R&R] overlooks the glaringly inconsistent
and inescapable fact that the police in this case shot Mr. Bevans in his back,” and
that, “[c]ontrary to the Magistrate’s conclusion, this cannot be reconciled with the
story that the Commonwealth’s witnesses told at trial.” Objs. at 1. But this
objection misjudges the legal significance of that evidence.
A petitioner alleging that he was convicted without sufficient evidence, and
thus in violation of due process of law, must establish, “with explicit reference to
2

the substantive elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law,” that with
“the record evidence adduced at the trial[,] no rational trier of fact could have
found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 321, 324 n.16 (1979). Here, the jury’s conviction of aggravated assault under
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(2) required it to find that: Officer Culver was engaged
in his duty as a police officer; Bevans attempted to cause serious bodily injury to
him, that is, took “a substantial step” towards either creating a substantial risk of
death or of causing serious permanent disfigurement or protracted impairment of
bodily function; and Bevans’s conduct was intentional. 18 Pa. Const. Stat. §§
2702(a)(2), 2301, 901(a).
The Commonwealth presented witness testimony and physical evidence
from which a jury could make the requisite findings. Officer Culver described
Bevans “slightly” turning around and pointing his gun at him while he was in
pursuit in his marked patrol car. Bevans’s gun was found to be fully loaded, with
the safety off, and an unfired cartridge jammed in the chamber.

An expert

ballistician testified that the jam, which could have resulted from someone
attempting to fire the gun while holding it improperly or while moving, prevented
the gun from firing when the expert later attempted to test-fire it. See R&R at 1213 (citing trial testimony). This evidence permitted the jury to infer that Bevans
not only aimed the loaded gun at Officer Culver as he was running away from him
3

but attempted to fire it, manifesting his intent to harm the officer. The jury thus
heard evidence sufficient to support each element of this aggravated assault charge.
Bevans’s objection does not undermine the R&R’s analysis of this due
process claim. Because the state court’s rejection of this claim on direct review did
not involve an unreasonable application of Jackson, habeas relief is not available
on Ground One.
Grounds Two, Three, and Four:

Bevans also objects to the R&R’s

analysis of his ineffectiveness claims, which comprise the remainder of his
petition. He provides no additional argument as to Grounds Two and Four but
instead “rests on his prior submissions[.]” Objs. at 5. Upon review of the papers
and the state court decisions, I agree with Judge Straw that the claims asserted in
Grounds Two and Four were reasonably rejected on collateral review. The state
court did not unreasonably apply any Sixth Amendment precedents of the United
States Supreme Court.
In Ground Three, Bevans asserted that trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance when he failed to object to testimony that Officer Culver had young
children and had not been involved in any other police shootings over the course of
his career. In his objection, Bevans complains that the R&R erroneously stated
that this evidence was admitted pursuant to Pennsylvania law. Objs. at 5. He
argues that such evidence is generally inadmissible under Pennsylvania Rule of
4

Evidence 404; that there was no other basis in the state rules to admit favorable
character evidence concerning Officer Culver; and that he suffered prejudice where
this evidence allowed the Commonwealth to “inappropriately bolster its witness’s
highly questionable testimony” that he fired on Bevans when Bevans was pointing
a gun at him. Objs. at 5-6.
Bevans has not impeached the R&R’s analysis of this claim. As explained
in the R&R and the state court decisions on collateral review, the defense opened
the door to the character of Officer Culver as it attempted to flip the narrative of
which of the two men acted unlawfully and suggested that Officer Culver was
motivated to give a false account of the encounter.

As early as its opening

statement, the defense suggested to the jury that the Commonwealth’s account,
which came only from police officers, conflicted with the physical evidence that
would be introduced. N.T. 10/9/2012 at 39-40. Given this context, the state court
explained, the Commonwealth was allowed to rebut the suggestion that Officer
Culver would shoot a suspect without justification and that he and his partner
would then risk their careers by lying about the circumstances of the shooting.
With the state court finding that no objection would have been warranted under
state evidentiary rules, the R&R correctly determined that Bevans had not
established that trial counsel performed in a constitutionally-deficient manner. The
state court’s rejection of this claim was not an unreasonable application of
5

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Bevans is not entitled to habeas relief on any of his claims. And as he has
not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, there is no
basis to issue a certificate of appealability. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 332
(2003).
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2025, upon consideration of the
counseled petition and supporting memorandum of law, the Commonwealth’s
response, and the state court record, it is ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Joel Bevans’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation of
the Hon. Craig M. Straw’s (ECF No. 17) are OVERRULED;
2. The recommendation of the R&R (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED; and
3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.
A certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) is not warranted.
The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.

____s/ANITA B. BRODY, J._________
ANITA B. BRODY, J.

6