McKnight v. Warden

FREDDIE L. MCKNIGHT III, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.

No. 3:14-CV-625-JD-MGG

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

September 23, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

JON E DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Freddie L. McKnight, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his conviction for cocaine dealing under Case No 20C01-606-FA-49. ECF 1. Following a jury trial, on December 7, 2006, the Elkhart Circuit Court sentenced him to forty-eight years of incarceration.

BACKGROUND

In deciding this habeas petition, the court must presume the facts set forth by the state courts are correct unless they are rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C § 2254(e)(1). The Court of Appeals of Indiana summarized the evidence presented at trial:

The relevant facts indicate that on May 31, 2006, “a cooperating source working with Officer Shawn Turner of the Elkhart County Interdiction and Covert Enforcement Unit purchased 8.709 grams of cocaine freebase or crack from McKnight.” Specifically, under the direction of Officer Turner, cooperating source Mickie Rhymer called McKnight and arranged to buy a quarter ounce or “quad” of cocaine from McKnight. Officers searched Rhymer, gave her $500 of photocopied cash to cover the drug purchase and a debt owed by Rhymer to McKnight, and wired her with a recording device. Rhymer and an undercover officer traveled to a residence in Rhymer's vehicle. Rhymer entered the kitchen of the residence, where she saw McKnight and scales with a bag of cocaine on it. Rhymer spoke with McKnight, and he indicated that he was giving her a little “extra” cocaine. Rhymer gave McKnight $500 in cash, and he gave her the bag later found to contain over eight grams of cocaine. Rhymer left the residence, was again searched by officers, and was found to only have the cocaine that she purchased from McKnight. As a result, the State charged McKnight with class A felony dealing in cocaine weighing three grams or more. Following a trial held on November 13 and 14, 2006, a jury found McKnight guilty as charged. The trial court imposed a sentence of forty-eight years.

ECF 36-16 at 2-3; McKnight v. State, 1 N.E.3d 193, 197-98 (Ind. App. 2013).

On February 14, 2008, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the sentence on direct appeal. ECF 36-8. On March 24, 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the petition for transfer. ECF 36-3 at 2. On March 26, 2009, McKnight initiated post-conviction proceedings in the Elkhart Superior Court, and that court denied his petition for post-conviction relief. ECF 36-2. On December 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the decision of the lower court. ECF 36-16. On July 30, 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court denied McKnight's motion to file a belated petition for transfer. ECF 36-20.

On March 31, 2014, McKnight filed the petition initiating this habeas case, and he later amended it. ECF 1, ECF 6. In the amended petition, McKnight argues that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss a biased juror and that the prosecution failed to disclose material impeachment evidence related to Mickie Rhymer. He further argues that trial counsel erred by failing to investigate and cross-examine Rhymer, by failing to object to the admission of an audio recording, by failing to move for a directed verdict based on insufficient evidence in relation to the weight of the cocaine, and by coercing him into informally accepting a plea deal.^[1] Additionally, he argues that appellate counsel erred by failing to raise on direct appeal the admissibility of the audio recording and insufficiency of the evidence in relation to the weight of the cocaine.

PROCEDURAL DEFAULT

Before considering the merits of a habeas petition, the court must ensure that the petitioner has exhausted all available remedies in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025 (7th Cir. 2004). To avoid procedural default, a habeas petitioner must fully and fairly present his federal claims to the state courts. Boyko v. Parke, 259 F.3d 781, 788 (7th Cir. 2001). Fair presentment “does not require a hypertechnical congruence between the claims made in the federal and state courts; it merely requires that the factual and legal substance remain the same.” Anderson v Brevik, 471 F.3d 811, 814-15 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Boyko, 259 F.3d at 788). It does, however, require “the petitioner to assert his federal claim through one complete round of state-court review, either on direct appeal of his conviction or in post-conviction proceedings.” Lewis, 390 F.3d at 1025 (internal quotations and citations omitted). “This means that the petitioner must raise the issue at each and every level in the state court system, including levels at which review is discretionary rather than mandatory.” Id. “A habeas petitioner who has exhausted his state court remedies without properly asserting his federal claim at each level of state court review has procedurally defaulted that claim.” Id.

McKnight presented his claim that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss a biased juror to the Court of Appeals of Indiana and the Indiana Supreme Court on direct appeal. ECF 36-6; ECF 36-9. At the post-conviction review stage, McKnight did not present his claim that trial counsel coerced him into accepting a plea deal to the Elkhart Circuit Court.^[2] PCR App. 106-23. Further, the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the petition for transfer referencing his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel, as detailed above, as untimely pursuant to Ind. R. App. 57(C). ECF 36-19. Therefore, the claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel are procedurally defaulted.

McKnight asserts that the court should excuse procedural default because he proceeded pro se during post-conviction review. A habeas petitioner can overcome a procedural default by showing both cause for failing to abide by state procedural rules and a resulting prejudice from that failure. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 (1977); Wrinkles v. Buss, 537 F.3d 804, 812 (7th Cir. 2008). “Cause for a procedural default exists where something external to the petitioner, something that cannot fairly be attributed to him impeded his efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule.” Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266, 280 (2012). As a general rule, “[n]egligence on the part of a prisoner's postconviction attorney does not qualify as cause.” The exception is that “[i]nadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner's procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial.” Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 9 (2012); Brown v. Brown, 847 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2017).

[W]hen a State requires a prisoner to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in a collateral proceeding, a prisoner may establish cause for a default of an ineffective-assistance claim in two circumstances. The first is where the state courts did not appoint counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding for a claim of ineffective assistance at trial. The second is where appointed counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding, where the claim should have been raised, was ineffective under the standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). To overcome the default, a prisoner must also demonstrate that the underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the prisoner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit.

Martinez, 566 U.S. at 14.

McKnight raised each of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims before the Elkhart Circuit Court except for the claim that trial counsel coerced him into accepting a plea deal, so that claim is the only one of McKnight's claims that qualifies under these parameters. PCR App. 106-23. “[A] prisoner must also demonstrate that the underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the prisoner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit.” Id. at 14. As detailed below, the court finds that the claim that trial counsel coerced him into accepting a plea deal is not substantial and declines to excuse procedural default.

McKnight asserts that the court should excuse procedural default for the remaining claims because correctional staff did not promptly mail his motion for a rehearing, which, in turn, caused him to file an untimely petition to transfer. The Warden responds that McKnight's failure to follow institutional procedures for legal mail caused the untimely nature of the motion for rehearing. The Warden contends that McKnight instructed the mail room staff to send the filings to the law library for copying, binding, and mailing and that, absent these instructions, the mail room staff would have promptly mailed the filings, resulting in a timely filing. McKnight replies that he needed to send the motion for rehearing to the law library for copies in order to satisfy his service obligations to opposing counsel. After consideration of these arguments, the court finds that these circumstances present a difficult question on whether the petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated cause-and-prejudice to excuse procedural default. However, as discussed below, this case does not turn on this question, so the court will assume without deciding that McKnight has demonstrated cause and prejudice and consider the merits of his claims.^[3]

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Federal habeas review . . . exists as a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal.”...