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.

Woods v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

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

September 18, 2017

LUTHER WOODS, Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents.

          ORDER

          JOHN ANTOON II, STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This case is before the Court on Petitioner Luther Woods* Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ('"Second Amended Petition, " Doc. 10) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents filed a Response to the Second Amended Petition ("Response, " Doc. 24) in accordance with this Court's instructions. Petitioner filed a Reply to the Response ("Reply, " Doc. 31).

         Petitioner asserts seven grounds for relief. For the following reasons, the Second Amended Petition is denied.

         I. Procedural History

         Petitioner was charged with robbery with a firearm (Count One), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count Two), and grand theft (Count Three). (Doc. 26-7 at 34-36). A jury found Petitioner guilty of Counts One and Three. (Doc. 26-6 at 35). The State nol prossed Count Two. (Id. at 67). The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a twenty-five year term of imprisonment for Count One and to a concurrent five-year term of imprisonment for Count Three. (Doc. 26-9 at 46-48). Petitioner appealed, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida ("Fifth DCA") affirmed per curiam. (Doc. 26-10 at 58).

         Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which he amended after the state court struck several claims with leave to amend. (Id. at 62-78; Doc. 26-11 at 2-8). The state court denied the amended motion. (Id. at 12-18). Petitioner appealed, and the Fifth DC A affirmed per curiam. (Doc. 26-12 at 6).

         Petitioner filed a state habeas petition. (Id. at 18-43). The Fifth DCA summarily denied the petition. (Doc. 26-13 at 2).

         II. Legal Standards

         A. Standard Of Review Under The Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA")

         Pursuant to the AEDPA, federal habeas relief may not be granted with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court 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 Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The phrase "clearly established Federal law, " encompasses only the holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States "as of the time of the relevant state-court decision." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000).

         "[S]ection 2254(d)(1) provides two separate bases for reviewing state court decisions; the 'contrary to' and 'unreasonable application' clauses articulate independent considerations a federal court must consider." Maharaj v. Sec y for Dep i of Con:, 432 F.3d 1292, 1308 (11th Cir. 2005). The meaning of the clauses was discussed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Parker v. Head. 244 F.3d 831, 835 (11th Cir. 2001):

Under the "contrary to" clause, a federal court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the United States Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the 'unreasonable application' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the United States Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.

         Even if the federal court concludes that the state court applied federal law incorrectly, habeas relief is appropriate only if that application was "objectively unreasonable." Id.

         Finally, under § 2254(d)(2), a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the state court's decision "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." A determination of a factual issue made by a state court, however, shall be presumed correct, and the habeas petitioner shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. See Parker, 244 F.3d at 835-36; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

         B. Standard For Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

         The Supreme Court of the United States in Strickland v. Washington,466 U.S. 668 (1984), established a two-part test for determining whether a convicted person is entitled to relief on the ground that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance: (1) whether counsel's performance was deficient and "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness"; and (2) whether the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.[1]Id. at 687-88. A court must adhere to a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689-90. "Thus, a court deciding an actual ineffectiveness claim must judge the reasonableness of counsel's ...


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.