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.

Shorter v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

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

December 12, 2017

DALTONICA SHORTER, Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al, Respondents.

          ORDER

          JOHN ANTOON II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause is before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (//Petition/, Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thereafter, Respondents filed a Response to the Petition ("Response, " Doc. 12) in accordance with this Court's instructions. Petitioner filed a Reply to the Response ("Reply, " Doc. 16).

         Petitioner alleges eleven claims for relief in the Petition. Upon due consideration of the pleadings and the state court record, the Court concludes that the Petition must be denied.

         I. Procedural History

         Petitioner, along with six co-defendants, was charged by indictment with racketeering (Count One), conspiracy to commit racketeering (Count Two), conspiracy to traffic in 400 grams or more but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine (Count Three), and conspiracy to traffic in 25 pounds or more but less than 2000 pounds of cannabis (Count Four) (Doc. 12-1 at 141-61). After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted as charged of Counts One and Two and was acquitted of Count Three (Doc. 12-2 at 201-03). The State filed a nolle prosequi with regard to Count Four. Id. at 205. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to fifteen-year terms of imprisonment for Counts One and Two to be followed by ten-year terms of probation (Doc. 12-3 at 78-82). Petitioner appealed, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal ("Fifth DCA") affirmed per curiam (Doc. 12-8 at 198).

         Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure in which he alleged four claims. Id. at 225-252. The trial court summarily denied the motion (Doc. 12-9 at 237-43). Petitioner appealed, and the Fifth DCA affirmed per curiam (Doc. 12-10 at 141).

         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 United States Supreme Court "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'yfor Dep't 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. Whether a state court's decision was an unreasonable application of law must be assessed in light of the record before the state court. Holland v. ]ackson, 542 U.S. 649, 652 (2004) (per curiam).

         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 ...


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.