Hamilton v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

1

DAVID CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 22-cv-14392-Cann/McCabe

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

July 17, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RYON M. MCCABE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon David Christopher Hamilton's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”) (DE 1), which was referred to the undersigned by United States District Judge Aileen M. Cannon (DE 5). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Petition be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2015, the State Attorney for the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Highlands County, Florida charged Petitioner with (1) burglary of a dwelling while armed with a firearm in violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 810.02 and 775.087, and (2) grand theft in violation of Fla. Stat § 812.014 (DE 9-1 at 9-11, Ex. B). The case proceeded to trial on June 13, 2016 (DE 10-3, DE 10-4).

A. Trial Evidence

At trial, an eyewitness neighbor (hereafter “Eyewitness”) testified that, on the afternoon of January 27, 2015, he saw a man and a woman break into his neighbor's house located in Lake Placid, Florida (DE 10-3 at 52-55, 66). The Eyewitness saw the man help the woman climb through a garage window, after which the woman opened the garage door and the two entered the house (DE 10-3 at 54, 66). After a few minutes, the Eyewitness saw the pair exit the house, with the man carrying an object that appeared to be a power tool “the size of a drill” (DE 10-3 at 55, 67). The man placed the item into a basket affixed to a bicycle leaning against the house (DE 103 at 55, 65, 69). The Eyewitness then saw the man and woman leave the house together, each riding a bicycle, one “light or cream colored” with a basket, and the other with a “darker frame” (DE 10-3 at 53-55).

A few minutes after the two left, the Eyewitness called 911 (DE 10-3 at 56). A Highland County Deputy Sheriff (hereafter “Responding Deputy”) thereafter responded to the scene at 2:14 PM and spoke to the Eyewitness (DE 10-3 at 38). The Responding Deputy then contacted one of the two residents of the home (hereafter “Resident 1”) and provided a description of the two suspects, as relayed by the Eyewitness (DE 10-3 at 39, 88). Resident 1 immediately said she knew “who it was” and gave Petitioner's name to the Responding Deputy, as well as the name of Petitioner's girlfriend (hereafter “Girlfriend”). Resident 1 explained that Petitioner and his Girlfriend were currently living as tenants in a trailer owned by Resident 1's parents and that Resident 1 had hired the Girlfriend to clean her house three or four days earlier (DE 10-3 at 89). As to the light or cream-colored bicycle with a basket, Resident 1 told the Responding Deputy that she knew of a bicycle fitting that description near her parents' trailer, where Petitioner and his Girlfriend were living (DE 10-3 at 145).

The Responding Deputy then pulled up a small photograph of Petitioner on the computer screen in his squad car (DE 10-3 at 40-41). The Responding Deputy showed the computer screen to the Eyewitness, who responded, “Look, I think it's him, but the guy appeared to have a skinnier face” (DE 10-3 at 57).

Thereafter, the Highland County Sheriff's Office initiated an investigation, during which an investigator (hereafter “Investigating Deputy”) visited the area where Petitioner and his Girlfriend reportedly lived (DE 10-3 at 149, 154). A few houses down from Petitioner's trailer, the Investigating Deputy found a cream-colored bicycle with a basket that matched the description provided by the Eyewitness (DE 10-3 at 149-51). The Investigating Deputy found the owner of the bicycle, who reported that he had loaned it to the Girlfriend “prior to this incident” (DE 10-3 at 149, 151). At another nearby house, the Investigating Deputy found a black ten-speed bicycle that matched the description of the second bicycle provided by the Eyewitness (DE 10-3 at 15354). The Investigating Deputy found the owner of this second bicycle and learned that the owner had loaned it to Petitioner (DE 10-3 at 153-154).

Thereafter, on February 5, 2015, another Deputy returned to the Eyewitness with a photo line-up of six males, one of whom was Petitioner (DE 10-3 at 78, 82, 115). The line-up photos appeared larger because the Eyewitness could hold the photo closer for inspection as compared to the photo previously displayed on the squad car's computer screen, which had been arm's distance away (DE 10-3 at 40, 61). This time, the Eyewitness positively identified Petitioner as the man who had committed the burglary (DE 10-3 at 58, 115).

B. Verdict and Sentence

After a three-day jury trial, on June 15, 2016, the jury found Petitioner guilty as charged on all counts (DE 10-4 at 277-78). The trial court adjudicated Petitioner guilty and eventually sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment, as well as five years' probation (DE 9-1 at 17-20; DE 10-5 at 60-61).

C. Direct Appeal

On August 29, 2016, Petitioner appealed his conviction to Florida's Second District Court of Appeal (“Second DCA”), raising three claims: (1) Petitioner's trial counsel (hereafter “Trial Counsel”) rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress the computer screen, show-up identification made by the Responding Deputy and by failing to object to certain hearsay evidence; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence that one of Petitioner's associates had a reputation for dealing in stolen goods; and (3) the trial court erred by telling the jury they could leave their notepads in the courtroom during a break because “no cleaning people will come in,” after the jury heard testimony that a “cleaning person” had committed the offense at issue (DE 91 29-31, Ex. D at 44). The Second DCA affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on December 6, 2017. See Hamilton v. State, 241 So.3d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). The mandate issued on March 5, 2018 (DE 9-1 at 136).

D. Postconviction Motion

Thereafter, on January 19, 2019, Petitioner filed a postconviction motion pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 (DE 9-1 at 139-78). Petitioner argued that his Trial Counsel rendered ineffective assistance in four respects: (1) by failing to move to suppress the Responding Deputy's computer screen show-up identification (DE 9-1 at 154-60); (2) by failing to object to certain hearsay testimony (DE 9-1 at 160-64); (3) by failing to call two alibi witnesses at trial (DE 9-1 at 164-68); and (4) by giving Petitioner improper advice as to his likelihood of success on the armed burglary charge and his resulting sentencing exposure, which caused Petitioner to reject multiple favorable plea offers (DE 9-1 at 168-71).

On January 27, 2020, the postconviction trial court denied claims (1) - (3) by written order without an evidentiary hearing (DE 9-1 at 703-06). The court reserved ruling on claim (4), finding that an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to resolve that claim (DE 9-1 at 705, 1473).

E. Amended Postconviction Motion

Before the state court scheduled a hearing to resolve claim (4), Petitioner filed an amended postconviction motion, re-stating the same four claims, but asserting newly discovered evidence in the form of five witness statements (DE 9-1 at 747, 1199-1228, 1230-72, 1274-1323, 1325-72, 1374-99, 1401-69). On August 24, 2020, the state court issued a written decision that rejected claims (1) - (3) as “previously denied” (DE 9-1 at 1471-73). As to the newly discovered evidence, the court found it “untimely as well as successive” pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1), which prohibits postconviction motions filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence became final unless the motion alleges that “the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence....” (DE 9-1 at 1472). The trial court found Petitioner could not meet this standard (DE 9-1 at 1472).

As to claim (4), the trial court moved forward with an evidentiary hearing on June 25, 2021, during which Petitioner and Trial Counsel both testified (DE 10-6). After hearing the evidence, the court denied claim (4), finding Trial Counsel's testimony credible that he never guaranteed success on the armed burglary charge and that he properly advised Petitioner as to his sentencing exposure (DE 9-1 at 1483). The court found Petitioner's testimony incredible that Trial Counsel guaranteed success on the armed burglary charge and that none of the lawyers or trial judges assigned to his case had ever alerted him to the mandatory ten-year prison term he faced if convicted on the armed burglary charge (DE 9-1 at 1481-82). Having made these factual determinations, the court denied claim (4), thus resolving the last of the four claims raised in Petitioner's Rule 3.850 motion.

F. Appeal of Postconviction Proceedings

On August 11, 2021, Petitioner appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to the Second DCA, raising three issues: (1) the trial court erred by misapplying the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel and by making findings of fact unsupported by competent substantial evidence (DE 9-1 at 1522-33); (2) the trial court erred by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing as to claims (1) - (3) (DE 9-1 at 1534-41); and (3) the trial court erred by deeming Petitioner's newly discovered evidence as untimely under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) (DE 9-1 at 1541-43). On September 2, 2022, the Second DCA affirmed the trial court's decision in Hamilton v. State, 346 So.3d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) and issued its mandate on October 3, 2022 (DE 9-1 at 1604).

This habeas Petition followed.

II. STAN...