Fields v. Boughton

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE

Robbie Fields, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for first-degree reckless homicide. Fields's petition is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, I must dismiss the petition “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” In conducting this review, I have considered the petition and its attachments, Fields's supporting brief, and the decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on his direct appeal. Because these records show that Fields is not entitled to relief, I will dismiss the petition.

BACKGROUND

Fields was arrested and charged with first-degree reckless homicide after an individual was found dead from multiple gunshot wounds inside Fields's residence. Milwaukee Cty. Case. No. 2015CF1126. Three witnesses had identified Fields as the likely shooter, and two days after the shooting, Fields approached a police officer on a public street and confessed to killing someone on the date and at location of the shooting. Fields later denied that he confessed and pleaded not guilty to the charge.

2

The case proceeded to a jury trial, at which the state presented testimony from police investigators, the police officer to whom Fields had confessed, and three witnesses who were present at the residence where the shooting occurred. The state's evidence showed that Fields, the victim, and the three witnesses all knew each other. On the day of the shooting, Fields and the victim had a physical altercation outside of Fields's residence, and Fields displayed a gun. The victim ran into Fields's apartment and Fields followed him. The witnesses heard gunshots, and one witness saw Fields flee from the scene holding a gun. Shortly after Fields left, police arrived and found the victim dead from gunshot wounds in Fields's bedroom. Fields's bedroom door was damaged by gunshots, and shell casings were found inside and outside of the bedroom. Two days later, Fields approached a police officer on a street near the county courthouse and confessed to being involved in the shooting.

The jury found Fields guilty of first-degree reckless homicide, and the circuit court judge sentenced Fields to 25 years of prison confinement and 15 years of extended supervision.

Fields's appellate counsel filed a no-merit report with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals under Wis.Stat. § 809.32, which is Wisconsin's procedure for implementing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Fields responded, identifying several issues that he believed should be addressed on appeal. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the conviction, concluding that there was no arguable merit to any appealable issues. State v. Fields, 2018AP1800-CRNM (Wis. App. Jan. 6, 2021). Fields filed a petition for review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court which was summarily denied. He then filed a habeas petition in this court.

3

ANALYSIS

Fields contends that he is entitled to habeas relief on numerous grounds, which can be categorized as follows:

(1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the probable cause finding at the preliminary hearing; for failing to seek suppression of Fields's street confession; for failing to adequately impeach three state witnesses; and for failing to investigate the crime scene

(2) the trial court abused its discretion by granting a continuance to the state; and

(4) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of first-degree reckless homicide

A. Federal habeas standard

The first question is what standard of review applies to Fields's habeas petition. If a state court has adjudicated the merits of a habeas claim, a federal court may grant habeas relief only if the state court's decision (1) 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) 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)(1)-(2); Czech v. Melvin, 904 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2018). This standard applies even if the state court provided no explanation for its rejection of a particular claim. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011) (“§ 2254(d) does not require a state court to give reasons before its decision can be deemed to have been ‘adjudicated on the merits'”).

In this instance, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals accepted appellate counsel's no-merit report and affirmed Fields's conviction. The court addressed some, but not all, of the arguments that Fields raised in his no-merit response briefs. The court stated that any issue not discussed was “rejected due to lack of arguable merit based on counsel's no-merit reports, the record and

4

Fields's responses.” Fields, 2018AP1800-CRNM, at *3, n.1. So the court's decision constitutes a decision on the merits of his appeal, and it is entitled to deference under § 2254(d). Richter, 562 U.S. at 98 (when “state court rejects a prisoner's federal claim without discussion, a federal habeas court must presume that the court adjudicated it on the merits unless some state-law procedural principle indicates otherwise”); Lee v. Avila, 871 F.3d 565, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2017) (state court decision was subject to deferential review where state court expressly addressed some, but not all of prisoner's claims) (citing Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 301 (2013)). Because the state court ruled on the merits of his claims, Fields can succeed on his habeas petition only if he shows that the court's denial of relief “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Gage v. Richardson, 978 F.3d 522, 529 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Richter, 562 U.S. at 89).

B. Ineffective assistance claims

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals correctly stated that to succeed on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, Fields had to show both that his counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result. Fields, 2018AP1800-CRNM, at *5. See also Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The court concluded that Fields's ineffective assistance claims were meritless because he could not show any prejudice from any of the alleged defects in counsel's performance. I review the court's conclusion with respect to each of Fields's ineffective assistance claims below. I must deny relief so long as the state court “took the constitutional standard seriously and produced an answer within the range of defensible positions.” Taylor v. Bradley, 448 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

5

1. Failure to challenge finding of probable cause at preliminary hearing

At the preliminary hearing held after Fields was arrested, a detective testified that Fields had walked up to an officer on the street and confessed to the shooting. Dkt. 1-4, at 4-5. The detective also testified that an eyewitness had seen Fields running toward the residence and firing a gun on the day of the shooting. Id. Based on the detective's testimony, the circuit court concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Fields had committed a felony, and Fields was bound over for trial.

Fields argues that the detective's testimony was false, and that his trial counsel should have challenged the testimony by calling a crime scene investigator who would have pointed out the impossibility of the eyewitness's statements. He also argues that the state violated his due process rights by allowing the detective to make false statements about the confession and about what the eyewitness had reported.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not discuss Fields's arguments that his conviction should be vacated because the preliminary hearing violated his constitutional rights. However, it was reasonable for the court to reject the arguments because any error at the preliminary hearing would not be sufficient to invalidate Fields's conviction. It is well-established that an illegal arrest, preliminary hearing, or detention does not void a subsequent conviction. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 119 (1975) (“illegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction . . . [and] a conviction will not be vacated on the ground that the defendant was detained pending trial without a determination of probable cause”); Stevenson v. Thurmer, No. 08-CV-0494-BBC, 2009 WL 210694, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 28, 2009) (“[N]one of petitioner's claims regarding the conduct of his preliminary hearing, including his lawyer's failure to object to the hearsay evidence at the hearing and his failure to file an interlocutory

6

appeal afterwards, present colorable constitutional claims.”). Fields was convicted after a jury trial, so even if the state presented false testimony at the preliminary hearing to which Fields's lawyer could have objected, the flawed preliminary hearing would not provide a basis to invalidate his subsequent conviction.

2. Failure to seek suppression of Fields's street confession

Two days after the shooting, Fields was arrested after he approached Officer Jonathan Jenkins, a forensic investigator, near the Milwaukee County courthouse. According to Jenkins's police report, Fields approached him and stated that he needed to turn himself in. Jenkins asked Fields, “What for?” Fields responded that he had killed someone, and Jenkins asked, “Well, who did you kill?” Fields replied, “I don't even want to say his name.” Jenkins then asked, “Well,...