United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Carlton
Raymond Edwards, through counsel, filed this petition for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1).
Mr. Edwards challenges his 2010 conviction in Tuscaloosa
County Circuit Court for manslaughter. (Id. at 1).
On April 23, 2019, the magistrate judge to whom the case was
referred entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b), recommending that the court deny Mr. Edwards'
§ 2254 petition. (Doc. 10). Mr. Edwards filed timely
objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 15).
Most of
Mr. Edwards' objections repeat arguments that he
presented in his § 2254 petition and that the magistrate
judge already addressed in the report and recommendation.
After carefully reviewing the record, the report and
recommendation, and the objections, the court finds that the
report and recommendation correctly resolved those arguments
and OVERRULES those objections without
further discussion. The court will, however, address Mr.
Edwards' remaining objections at more length.
A.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Failing to Request a
Pretrial Immunity Hearing
Mr.
Edwards contends that he established prejudice from trial
counsel's failure to request a pretrial immunity hearing
because, without such a hearing counsel lost “an
important opportunity to get the statements of various
witnesses under oath to further effectively challenge them at
trial.” (Doc. 15 at 6).
The
undisputed testimony at trial established that Mr. Edwards
and Mr. Spencer got into an argument, leading to Mr. Edwards
shooting Mr. Spencer. (See Doc. 10 at 2-4). Mr.
Edwards has not alleged how the sworn testimony at the
pretrial immunity hearing would have differed from the sworn
testimony at trial in a way that would have a substantial
likelihood of changing the result of the trial. See
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011)
(“The likelihood of a different result must be
substantial, not just conceivable.”); (see
Doc. 15 at 6; see also Doc. 1 at 54). The court
cannot accept “conclusory allegations unsupported by
specifics.” Tejada v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551,
1559 (11th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the court
OVERRULES this objection.
B.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Failing to Interview
the Medical Examiner Prior to Trial
Mr.
Edwards contends that the magistrate judge improperly focused
on whether interviewing the medical examiner before trial
would have changed the manner of Mr. Spencer's death, but
his claim actually alleges that trial counsel failed to
properly prepare for trial by interviewing the medical
examiner, as a result of which he was surprised by the
medical examiner's testimony about Mr. Edwards possibly
causing injuries to Mr. Spencer's head and neck during
the fight. (Doc. 15 at 11-14).
Even
assuming that trial counsel's failure to interview the
medical examiner amounted to deficient performance, Mr.
Edwards has not established prejudice. He asserts that
because trial counsel was surprised by the medical
examiner's testimony about the injuries to Mr.
Spencer's head and neck, counsel “did not have any
rebuttal other than trying to argue the marks could have been
caused by a chain Spencer was wearing . . . and by Mr.
Spencer's head striking the wall.” (Doc. 15 at 13).
But he does not allege what other tactic or line of
questioning counsel might have pursued with the benefit of
further investigation, or how that unspecified line of
questioning would have had a substantial likelihood of
changing the outcome of the case. See Harrington,
562 U.S. at 112. The court cannot rely on Mr. Edwards'
conclusory and speculative allegation of prejudice. See
Tejada, 941 F.2d at 1559. Accordingly, the court
OVERRULES this objection.
C.
Ineffective Assistance for Failing to Obtain Sworn and
Unparaphrased Witness Statements
In his
objection to the report and recommendation's treatment of
this claim, Mr. Edwards appears to request discovery so that
he can prove the existence of the statements at the root of
this claim. (Doc. 15 at 18-19). However, Mr. Edwards has
never made a formal discovery request from this court,
instead asking, in a footnote, for the court to order
production of the statements. (See Doc. 1 at 54
n.15).
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, a party requesting
discovery must “serve on any other party a
request” for discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). Mr. Edwards
has not done so, and the court does not find an informal
request made in a footnote to satisfy the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Proceedings. See Rule 6(b), Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court
OVERRULES this objection.
D.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Sentencing
Mr.
Edwards contends that the court should review this
ineffective assistance claim de novo because no
state court has adjudicated the actual claim that he
presented; he asserts ...