Robinson v. Buffaloe

BRIAN KEITH ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. EDDIE BUFFALOE, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, ^[1] Respondent.

CIVIL No. 3:20-cv-00397-MR

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

April 5, 2022

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

MARTIN REIDINGER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Petitioner Brian Keith Robinson's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [Doc. 1 as amended by Docs. 3, 4, 5]; the Respondent's “Motion to Dismiss on Procedural Default Grounds (Independent and Adequate State Law Ground)” [Doc. 11] the Petitioner's letter, which the Court construes as a Motion to Transfer [Doc. 19]; and the Petitioner's “Motion to Compel” [Doc. 20].

I. BACKGROUND

The Petitioner Brian Keith Robinson is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina. On January 10, 2018, the Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in Mecklenburg County Superior Court of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. [Doc. 12-4: Verdict Sheet]. The North Carolina Court of Appeals summarized the evidence presented at trial of the Petitioner's gun possession as follows:

In July 2016, two police officers went to Defendant's residence to serve an outstanding domestic warrant on him. Upon arriving at Defendant's home, the officers noticed three or four spent shell casings as well as plastic bags typically used to hold drugs in the driveway and yard. The officers knocked on the door, and Defendant asked who was there. When the officers told Defendant it was the police, they heard a loud noise, which the officers opined sounded like something metal or glass hitting the floor.

Defendant opened the door to the officers, but refused to permit them entry into his residence. The officers obtained and executed a search warrant for Defendant's home. During the search, officers found ammunition, an envelope addressed to Defendant with ammunition inside, and a nine millimeter handgun. Possession of this firearm and ammunition was in violation of a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) entered the month before.

State v. Robinson, No. COA18-661, 2019 WL 661556, at *1 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019) (unpublished).

After the jury returned the guilty verdict, the Petitioner pled guilty to having attained habitual felon status. [Doc. 12-2: Transcript of Plea Form]. On January 11, 2018, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to a term of imprisonment of 90 to 120 months. [Doc. 12-3: Judgment]. After sentencing, the Petitioner gave notice of appeal in open court. [Id. at 2; Doc. 12-5: Transcript of Oral Notice of Appeal].

On direct appeal, the Petitioner raised two claims: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the firearm charge based on insufficiency of the evidence; and (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, over his objection, that he was subject to a Domestic Violence Protective Order at the time of his arrest. Robinson, 2019 WL 661556, at *1-2. On February 19, 2019, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Id. at *3. The Petitioner appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which dismissed the Petitioner's notice of appeal and denied his petition for discretionary review on May 9, 2019. State v. Robinson, 372 N.C. 292, 826 S.E.2d 717 (N.C. 2019).

On June 24, 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 within this Court. [Case No. 3:19-cv-00303-FDW, Doc. 1]. In this petition, the Petitioner raised Fourth Amendment challenges to the legality of the search during which the firearm was discovered. He also claimed that the prior convictions used to prove his habitual felon status were used again to calculate his criminal record level at sentencing, resulting in an unconstitutionally enhanced sentence. [Id.]. On initial review, this Court dismissed the petition without prejudice on the grounds that the Petitioner had not exhausted his claims in state court. [Id., Doc. 4].

On November 22, 2019, the Petitioner filed a motion for appropriate relief (“MAR”) in state court. [Doc. 1 at 39-54: MAR]. The Petitioner raised four primary claims in his MAR. First, he argued that the search of his residence was conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Second, he argued that the firearm found to be in his possession should have been tested for DNA to show that the firearm was not fired, not touched by him, and not his handgun. Third, he argued that he was unlawfully sentenced in that: (a) the principal felony was one of the three prior felonies supporting his habitual felon status; (b) he was separately sentenced for attaining habitual felon status; (c) he was not properly adjudged to have attained habitual felon status because he only stipulated to habitual felon status and (d) the calculation of his prior record points and resulting prior record level to which he stipulated was not correct. Finally, the Petitioner argued that certain prior convictions should be expunged from his record pursuant to a number of bills introduced in the North Carolina House and Senate. [Id.]. Importantly, however, the Petitioner include in his MAR either of the grounds on which he had appealed his conviction.

On February 10, 2020, the trial court (hereinafter “the MAR court”) entered an Order denying the MAR. [Doc. 1 at 34-36: MAR Order]. Specifically, the MAR court found that the Petitioner's claims regarding the search of his residence, the firearm, and the lawfulness of his sentence “were either previously determined on the merits in [the Petitioner's] appeal from judgment, or [the Petitioner] was otherwise in an adequate position in his appeal to raise these alleged grounds or issues and he failed to do so.” [Id. at 35-36]. Accordingly, the MAR court concluded that the Petitioner was barred from raising these grounds in his MAR pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1419(a)(2) and (3). [Id.]. The MAR court further concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated good cause for excusing these grounds for denial; that he had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from his claims; and that he had not demonstrated that the failure to consider his claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. [Id. at 36]. As for the Petitioner's claim regarding the expungement of certain convictions based upon a change in the law, the MAR court concluded that the House and Senate bills cited by the Petitioner had yet to be enacted into law, and in any event, a request for expungement was not the type of relief available in an MAR proceeding. [Id.].

On March 2, 2020, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, seeking review of the denial of his MAR; the Court of Appeals denied review on March 5, 2020. [Doc. 1 at 20-38, 95- 96]. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for discretionary review with the North Carolina Supreme Court. [Doc. 12-11: Petition for Discretionary Review]. On June 3, 2020, the North Carolina Supreme Court denied review of the Court of Appeals' Order. State v. Robinson, 374 N.C. 745, 842 S.E.2d 581 (N.C. 2020).

The Petitioner filed the present Petition on July 8, 2020.^[2] [Doc. 1]. In his first two grounds for relief, the Petitioner claims that officers made “illegal” and “false” statements in order to procure a search warrant following a protective sweep of his house, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. [Id. at 4-6]. In his third ground for relief, the Petitioner contends for the first time that the predicate drug offense listed in the habitual felon indictment failed to identify a drug amount, thereby rendering the indictment defective. [Id. at 8]. In his fourth ground for relief, the Petitioner challenges for the first time his habitual felon conviction on the basis that the record of his prior convictions was not certified. [Id. at 10].

The Petitioner subsequently filed motions to “supplement” his Petition on three separate occasions. In the first motion, the Petitioner sought to supplement his fourth ground for relief with additional case law. [Doc. 3]. He further alleged that the use of his prior convictions in finding him to be a habitual felon violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Id. at 2]. In his second motion, the Petitioner sought to supplement his Fourth Amendment claims regarding the search of his residence with additional factual allegations. [Doc. 4]. In his third motion, the Petitioner supplemented his Fourth Amendment claims with additional citations to case law. [Doc. 5]. He further attached documents pertaining to the search of his house, including the search warrant application, the search warrant, and the evidence log of items seized during the search. [Doc. 5-1].

On January 19, 2021, the Court conducted an initial review of the Petition, construed the Petitioner's motions to “supplement” as motions to amend and granted the same, and ordered the Respondent to answer or otherwise respond to the § 2254 Petition, as amended. [Doc. 6].

On March 18, 2021, the Respondent filed an initial answer and a motion to dismiss on procedural default grounds. [Docs. 10, 11]. The Petitioner responded to the Respondent's motion to dismiss. [Doc. 16, as amended by Doc. 17]. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a letter which the Court construes as a motion, seeking transfer to a different prison facility so that he may more easily prosecute his case. [Doc. 19]. Finally, the Petitioner filed a motion, seeking to compel the Court to enter a judgment in his favor. [Doc. 20].

The pending motions are now ripe for disposition.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A federal court may grant a petitioner habeas relief from a state court judgment “only on...