Campbell v. May

1

KEITH CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. ROBERT MAY, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.

C. A. No. 19-1115 (MN)

United States District Court, D. Delaware

August 4, 2022

Keith L. Campbell - Pro se Petitioner.

Sean P. Lugg, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE -Attorneys for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NOREIKA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”) filed by Petitioner Keith Campbell (“Petitioner”). (D.I. 1). The State filed an Answer in opposition, to which Petitioner filed a Reply. (D.I. 19; D.I. 22). For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny the Petition as barred by the one-year limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and alternatively, as meritless and procedurally barred.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2014, Detective Hector Garcia of the New Castle County Police Department responded to South Street in New Castle, Delaware to investigate a shooting. (D.I. 182 at 4-5). By the time Detective Garcia arrived at the shooting scene, both individuals had been transported to Christiana Care Hospital for treatment. Detective Garcia met with the female shooting victim at the hospital and learned that, while the female and male victim sat in a car on South Street, a dark colored sport utility vehicle drove past them and parked on the opposite side of the street. (Id.). “[T]wo thin black males exit[ed] the [vehicle;] [t]he driver was wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt and the passenger a black one. They were both wearing black pants.” (D.I. 182 at 5). “[T]he ma[le] in the gray hooded sweatshirt point[ed] a gun in their direction and began to shoot into their vehicle.” (Id.). Bullets struck both the female and male victims, and the shooters fled the scene. (Id. at 4-5).

On November 10, 2014, the female victim's mother informed police that she received information that the shooters fled in a “black in color Ford Explorer with a partial Delaware Registration number PC31.” (D.I. 18-2 at 5). On November 12, 2014, Detective Garcia learned that Petitioner had “incriminated himself as being the one involved in ‘the hit.'” (Id. at 6). Detective Garcia's investigation revealed that on November 8, 2014, the day after the shooting, police initiated a traffic stop of a black Ford Explorer displaying Delaware Registration PC116369 driven by Petitioner. (Id.). Petitioner told the officer who stopped him that he had “‘just purchased' the vehicle.” (Id.). Detective Garcia obtained “a search warrant for the residence, vehicle and body of” Petitioner, and executed those warrants on November 14, 2014. (Id. at 7). Petitioner was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1996) and then agreed to speak with Detective Garcia. (D.I. 18-2 at 7). Although Petitioner initially denied involvement in the shooting, he subsequently informed Detective Garcia that, on November 7, 2014, he agreed to help Markevis Stanford and described how he picked up Stanford and an unknown black male in the city of Wilmington in his black Ford Explorer. (Id. at 7-8). The unknown black male gave Petitioner a 9 mm handgun. (Id. at 8). Petitioner then followed Stanford's directions and drove to the scene of the shooting. (Id.). Petitioner stated he remained in his car while Stanford and the unknown black male exited his car and began shooting and that when the shooting concluded, he drove Stanford and the unknown black male back to the city of Wilmington and dropped them off. (Id.).

On January 20, 2015, a New Castle County grand jury returned an indictment charging Petitioner with two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”), two counts of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”), and one count of first degree conspiracy. (D.I. 19 at 3).

On October 6, 2015, [Petitioner] pled guilty to Assault First Degree, Assault Second Degree, Conspiracy Second Degree, and one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (the “PFBPP Charge”). In the Plea Agreement, the State agreed to cap its Level 5 recommendation at 15 years or to recommend 25 years of Level 5 incarceration suspended after 15 years, followed by decreasing levels of probation. Prior to accepting this plea, [Petitioner] rejected an offer from the State that involved [Petitioner] pleading guilty to several felonies and the State's recommendation to cap the time to be served at Level 5 at 10 years.

On that same date, [Petitioner] also signed a Truth-in-Sentencing Form acknowledging that he was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty to the charges listed in the Plea Agreement, that he had not been promised anything that was not stated in the written Plea Agreement, and that no one threatened or forced him to enter the plea. [Petitioner] also acknowledged that by pleading guilty he was waiving the right to a trial, to question witnesses, and if convicted, to file an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court with the assistance of a lawyer. Further, [Petitioner] acknowledged that based on the totality of the charges to which he was pleading guilty, the consecutive maximum sentence could be 50 years.

[Petitioner] later filed two Motions to Withdraw Guilty Plea. On April 21, 2016, the [Superior] Court denied the motions but agreed to reduce the [Petitioner's] minimum mandatory time for the PFBPP Charge to 5 years.

[Petitioner] was sentenced on June 7, 2016 to a total of twelve (12) years at Level 5, followed by decreasing levels of probation. Included within the sentence, [Petitioner] received five (5) years at Level 5 for the PFBPP Charge.

State v. Campbell, 2017 WL 590317, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2017). Petitioner did not appeal his convictions or sentence.

On July 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for reduction of sentence. The Superior Court denied the motion for reduction of sentence on October 20, 2016. (D.I. 19 at 5).

Petitioner filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61 motion”) on December 5, 2016. (D.I. 19 at 5). On February 13, 2017, a Superior Court Commissioner recommended that Petitioner's Rule 61 motion be denied. See Campbell, 2017 WL 590317, at *4. On October 27, 2017, the Superior Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Petitioner's Rule 61 motion. (D.I. 18-5). Petitioner appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on January 19, 2018 for being untimely. See Campbell v. State, 179 A.3d 276 (Table), 2018 WL 500130, at *2 (Del. Jan. 19, 2018).

Petitioner filed a second Rule 61 motion on July 12, 2018. See State v. Campbell, 2020 WL 3002957, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. June 4, 2020). On August 16, 2018, a Superior Court Commissioner recommended that Petitioner's second Rule 61 motion be summarily dismissed. See State v. Campbell, 2018 WL 3954253, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 16, 2018). The Superior Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on September 10, 2018 and dismissed Petitioner's second Rule 61 motion. (D.I. 18-13). Petitioner appealed that decision, but voluntarily dismissed his appeal on December 6, 2018. (D.I. 18-1 at 13, Entry No. 86; D.I. 19 at 6).

On June 7, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion to modify his sentence followed by a motion to review sentence on July 16, 2019. (D.I. 18-1 at 13-14, Entry Nos. 89, 90, 92; D.I. 19 at 6). The Superior Court denied both motions on October 31, 2019, and Petitioner did not appeal that decision. (Id.).

On January 27, 2020, Petitioner filed his third Rule 61 motion, which the Superior Court denied as successive pursuant to Rule 61(d)(2) on August 25, 2020. (D.I. 18-1 at 14-15, Entry Nos. 93, 98, 104); see Campbell v. State, 247 A.3d 259 (Table), 2021 WL 450993, at *13 (Del. Feb. 8, 2021). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision on February 8, 2021. See Campbell, 2021 WL 450993, at *1.

On October 5, 2021, Petitioner filed a Rule 35 motion for correction of illegal sentence, followed by a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on November 9, 2021. (D.I. 18-1 at 16, Entry Nos. 109, 111; D.I. 19 at 7). The Superior Court denied both motions on January 12, 2022, and Petitioner appealed. (D.I. 18-1 at 16, Entry No. 113; D.I. 19 at 7). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision on April 28, 2022. See Campbell v. State, 2022 WL 1278996, at *2 (Del. Apr. 28, 2022).

Meanwhile, on June 23, 2019, Petitioner filed in this Court a federal habeas Petition asserting three grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner is actually innocent as demonstrated by exculpatory cell phone records obtained on June 20, 2018 and a June 2019 article in the Delaware New Journal (D.I. 1 at 5); (2) the Superior Court violated Petitioner's due process rights by refusing to allow him to review the evidence within the State's discovery (D.I. 1 at 7); and (3) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising Petitioner to accept the plea agreement despite “knowledge of exculpatory evidence” and the weaknesses of the State's case (D.I. 1 at 8).^[1]

II. ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) prescribes a one-year period of limitations for the filing of habeas petitions by state prisoners, which begins to run from the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the

...