Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mayes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

May 30, 2017

TODD MAYES, Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

          ORDER

          Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Florida state prisoner Todd Mayes (“Petitioner”) (Dkt. 1). Respondent, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, filed a response (Dkt. 7), which is accompanied by the appendix record of Petitioner's state court proceedings (Dkt. 9)[1]. Petitioner did not file a reply to the response and the time frame for doing so has expired. (See Dkt. 4, p. 4.)

         Procedural History

          Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction and sentence arising out of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. He was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery, three counts of sexual battery, attempted felony murder and false imprisonment. (Ex. 042, R. 75-92). He filed a notice of appeal on March 2, 2004. (Ex. 001). Defense counsel filed an initial Anders[2] brief with the Second District Court of Appeal on or about September 28, 2004. (Ex. 002). On December 20, 2004, Petitioner filed his pro se initial brief. (Ex. 003). The State filed its Anders answer brief on February 2, 2005. (Ex. 004). On May 25, 2005, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed per curiam. (Ex. 005). The mandate issued on June 21, 2005. (Ex. 006).

         On March 20, 2006, Petitioner filed his motion to correct illegal sentence, pursuant to Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Ex. 007). On April 4, 2006, the trial court filed its order denying, in part, the motion to correct illegal sentence and directing a response from Respondent as to the remaining claims. (Ex. 008). Respondent filed its response on April 17, 2006. (Ex. 009). The court held a hearing on the remaining claims of the motion to correct illegal sentence on May 8, 2006. (Ex. 010).[3] The court held a resentencing hearing on May 15, 2006. (Ex. 011).

         Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on June 12, 2006. (Ex. 012). Defense counsel filed an initial Anders brief with the Second District Court of Appeal on or about March 7, 2007. (Ex. 013). On April 18, 2007, the State filed its Anders answer brief. (Ex. 014). Petitioner filed his pro se initial brief on July 6, 2006. (Ex. 015). On September 21, 2007, the appellate court affirmed the decision per curiam. (Ex. 016). The mandate issued on October 12, 2007. (Ex. 017).

         On April 20, 2007, Petitioner filed his motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, raising twelve grounds. (Ex. 018). On July 13, 2007, the trial court ordered Respondent to respond to the claims, in part, and dismissed the remainder of the motion for post-conviction relief. (Ex. 019). On July 20, 2007, Respondent filed its response to the trial court's order. (Ex. 020). On July 25, 2007, Petitioner filed his motion to rehear and supplemental grounds for pending post-conviction motion. (Ex. 021). On June 3, 2008, the trial court filed its order denying grounds two and nine of Petitioner's motion for post-conviction relief and motion to re-hear and supplemental grounds for pending post-conviction motion. (Ex. 022). On June 17, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing. (Ex. 023). The trial court filed its order denying Petitioner's motion for rehearing on March 17, 2010. (Ex. 024).

         Petitioner filed his notice of appeal to the Second District Court of Appeal on April 14, 2010. (Ex. 025). He then filed his pro se initial brief on April 15, 2010. (Ex. 026). Respondent filed its summary letter on May 21, 2010. (Ex. 027). On February 11, 2011, the appellate court filed its opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for the trial court to strike the claim with leave to amend within a reasonable time. (Ex. 028). The mandate issued on March 2, 2011. (Ex. 029). Petitioner filed his amended motion for post-conviction relief with the trial court on May 3, 2011. (Ex. 030). On May 29, 2012, the court held an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner's Rule 3.850 motion. (Ex. 031). On June 27, 2012, the trial court denied claim twelve of the amended motion for post-conviction relief with an appendix containing the victim's deposition. (Ex. 032).

         On September 10, 2012, Petitioner filed his petition for belated appeal along with his initial brief. (Ex. 33). Respondent filed its response to Petitioner's petition for belated appeal on March 13, 2013. (Ex. 34). The Second District Court of Appeal filed its Order granting Petitioner's petition for belated appeal on March 26, 2013, and its order served as Petitioner's notice of appeal. (Ex. 035). Petitioner filed his initial brief with the appellate court on June 19, 2013. (Ex. 036). Respondent filed its answer brief on October 7, 2013. (Ex. 037). Petitioner filed his reply brief on October 26, 2013. (Ex. 038).

         On March 14, 2014, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed per curiam. (Ex. 039). Petitioner filed his motion for rehearing and/or clarification on March 24, 2014. (Ex. 040). The mandate issued on May 19, 2014. (Ex. 041).

         The AEDPA Standard of Review

          Petitioner's federal petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) effective April 24, 1996. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). Section 104 of the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by adding the following provision:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.