Dickerson v. Stirling

1

William O. Dickerson, Petitioner, v. Bryan P. Stirling, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, and Lydell Chestnut, Deputy Warden of Broad River Correctional Secure Facility, Respondents.

No. 9:22-cv-108-SAL

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

September 24, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge

Petitioner William O. Dickerson, brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from his state court convictions and death sentence. [ECF No. 1.] The matter is now before the court on Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 78.] Also pending are two motions to strike by Respondents. [ECF Nos. 80, 99.] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) D.S.C., pre-trial proceedings were referred to the Honorable Molly H. Cherry, United States Magistrate Judge. The court has unreferred the motions for consideration without a Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 110.] For the reasons set forth below, Respondents' motions are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The following are the facts of twenty-nine-year-old Gerard Roper's murder, as found by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in its order affirming Dickerson's convictions and sentences on direct appeal.

Dickerson and Gerard Roper had been friends, even best friends, since childhood. On the morning of March 6, 2006 Roper went to his friend, Ben Drayton's, house to play video games. Around the same time, Dickerson went to his friend, Antonio Nelson's, house asking for a ride to his brother, Armon Dickerson's, house. Nelson was unable to give Dickerson a ride at that time and told Dickerson to come back later. When Dickerson returned later that afternoon, he was carrying a gun.

En route to Armon's house, however, Dickerson began calling Roper from his cell phone. After receiving no answer Dickerson asked if they could make a stop at Drayton's house so he could “get some money.” When they arrived at Drayton's home, Dickerson entered brandishing his weapon and asking for money. Roper told Dickerson “I got your money,” begging “don't shoot me” and “please don't kill me.” Dickerson nevertheless fired a shot at Roper but missed. He then struck Roper in the head with the gun, dragged him out of the house, and forced him into Nelson's car. Dickerson then took Roper to Armon's house.

Armon and Dickerson brought Roper inside and systematically tortured him over approximately thirty-six hours. It started with Dickerson continuing to hit Roper with the gun, knocking out some of his teeth. Armon then left to retrieve Dickerson's car and some drugs, and blood covered the inside of the house when he returned. Dickerson then called another friend of his, Rashid Malik, and threatened him with death if he did not come to Armon's house. When Malik arrived, Roper was still conscious but clothed only in his T-shirt, and Armon was attempting to clean up the blood covering the house. Malik then joined Armon and Dickerson.

Although Dickerson, Armon, and Malik all tortured Roper to varying degrees, Dickerson appeared to be the primary actor. Through this entire ordeal, Roper suffered the following at the hands of Dickerson alone: choking, being tied up and placed in a closet, being sodomized with a gun and a broomstick, having his scrotum burned, being hit with a heavy vase and a mirror, and generalized beating and cutting. At one point, Roper began asking that they just let him die.

All told, Roper received over 200 individual wounds to the outside of his body, including lacerations to his anus. He also received several internal injuries, including various broken bones in his face that caused it to appear misshapen, blunt force trauma to his neck resulting in the breaking of various structures, a broken tibia, broken fingers and wrist, brain swelling, and bleeding into the internal structures around his rectum as the result of objects being inserted into it. Although there is no definite timeline of events, Roper survived for eighteen to twenty-four hours after the sodomy occurred, and none of these wounds were inflicted postmortem. No single wound was fatal. Instead, Roper died from the sum total of his injuries, apparently shortly after he was struck with the mirror and the vase on the morning of March 8.

As these events transpired, Dickerson made several phone calls to various people during which he discussed what he was doing to Roper. Many of them were to Dickerson's girlfriend, and she managed to record one of them containing his description of the sodomy and even Roper's own confirmation of what was happening. Dickerson also confirmed the sodomy, as well as the burning of Roper's scrotum, over the phone to another friend. In a later call to that same friend, he said that Roper was “gone.” However, he told a different friend that Roper was all right but that Dickerson needed to run.

Dickerson and Armon wrapped Roper's semi-clothed body in a blanket and dumped it in the vacant townhouse next to Armon's. Dickerson then changed clothes and fled. Armon and [his girlfriend] attempted to clean Armon's house, but they abandoned it upon realizing their efforts would be futile. That same day, a woman who was planning to rent the vacant townhouse entered and discovered Roper's bloodied and mutilated body.

Dickerson was arrested on March 11, 2006, and indicted for murder, kidnapping, and criminal sexual conduct.

State v. Dickerson, 716 S.E.2d 895, 898-99 (S.C. 2011); [ECF No. 20-22 at 215-16].

Dickerson proceeded to trial before a Charleston County jury in April 2009. The Honorable R. Markley Dennis presided. Dickerson's defense team included attorneys Jeffrey P. Bloom and C. Andrew Carroll. The State was represented by Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, along with Chief Deputy Solicitor Bruce Durant and former Assistant Solicitor Rutledge Durant. The jury found Dickerson guilty of all three charges and found three statutory aggravating circumstances supporting a sentence of death. After the jury's findings, Judge Dennis sentenced Dickerson to death for Roper's murder and thirty years' incarceration for each of the other crimes.

Represented by Bloom and two Appellate Defenders, Dickerson filed a timely appeal raising four separate issues. [ECF No. 23-1 at 2-3.] After full briefing and oral argument, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all respects. State v. Dickerson, 716 S.E.2d 895 (S.C. 2011); [ECF No. 20-22 at 215-23]. Dickerson then unsuccessfully sought rehearing in the South Carolina Supreme Court, ECF No. 23-5, and certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, ECF No. 23-9.

Next, Dickerson applied for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). [ECF No. 20-22 at 224 through ECF No. 20-23 at 30.] He was represented throughout his PCR proceedings by attorneys Elizabeth Franklin-Best and E. Charles Grose, Jr., both experienced capital defenders. The PCR court held five separate evidentiary hearings, along with multiple other hearings concerning funding, discovery disputes, and other motions. In addition, both parties submitted post-trial briefs. [ECF No. 20-40 at 257 through ECF No. 20-41 at 27.] The PCR court denied relief by written order dated June 26, 2018. [ECF No. 20-41 at 29-107.] Dickerson moved the court to reconsider its order pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRP. [ECF No. 20-41 at 110-22.] The PCR court denied Dickerson's motion but filed an amended order with corrected section headings on July 25, 2018. [ECF No. 20-42 at 34-35 (order denying Rule 59(e) motion), 36-113 (amended order denying post-conviction relief)^[1].]

Dickerson filed a timely, counseled appeal, which the South Carolina Supreme Court denied. [ECF No. 22-5.] The court also denied Dickerson's request for rehearing. [ECF No. 227.] Dickerson then sought a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on three of his PCR appellate issues. [ECF No. 61-1.] The Court denied Dickerson's petition on June 13, 2022. [ECF No. 61-4.]

Dickerson initiated the current action on October 13, 2021, after the conclusion of his state court proceedings and while seeking review from the United States Supreme Court. [ECF No. 1.] After preliminary proceedings in this court, Dickerson filed a second PCR action in state court seeking revised proportionality review. [ECF No. 61-6.] To allow Dickerson to fully exhaust any potential state court remedies, this court stayed his federal habeas action pending a final decision in his attempt at state collateral relief. [ECF No. 41.]

In response to Dickerson's second PCR application, the State filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the South Carolina Supreme Court, arguing Dickerson's claim was not appropriately before the circuit court. [ECF No. 61-9.] The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed and found Dickerson's claim was more properly the subject of a habeas petition in the court's original jurisdiction. [ECF No. 61-12.] In accordance with the court's order, Dickerson filed a petition for habeas corpus in the state supreme court's original jurisdiction seeking a new proportionality review of his sentence. [ECF No. 61-15.] The state court denied the petition on September 12, 2023. [ECF No. 61-18.] On September 21, 2023, this court lifted the stay of Dickerson's federal habeas action. [ECF No. 60.]

Dickerson alleges the following grounds for relief:

Ground I: Mr. Dickerson was denied his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection when the prosecution violated Batson v Kentucky and committed prosecutorial misconduct by improperly striking qualified black citizens from the jury venire.

Ground II: Mr. Dickerson was denied his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to fully develop,

...