Sims v. Morris

VICTOR L. SIMS, PETITIONER v. WARDEN MORRIS, RESPONDENT

Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-94-KS-RPM

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division

August 5, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ROBERT P. MYERS, JR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 31, 2018, petitioner Victor L. Sims (“Sims”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”), seeking for his state court conviction to be set aside, his sentence vacated, and a new trial. Doc. [1]. Sims contends that he is unlawfully confined because his conviction and sentence were imposed in violation of the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States. Id., at 1.

II. FACTS

On March 16, 2014, Joyce McCoy (“McCoy”) hosted a “card party” at her Laurel, MS house, which several guests attended, including: Dorothy Jackson (“Dorothy”), Victoria Dean (“Vickie”), Evelyn Thomas (“Evelyn”), Tawaya “Kimberly” Ransom (“Kimberly”), and Octavia Jackson (“Octavia”). Doc. [14], Ex. 3 (McCoy T. 134-37); Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 156-57). Around 6:00 PM that day, petitioner Sims dropped off his girlfriend, Shalonda Simmons (“Simmons”), at McCoy's house. Id., Ex. 4 (Sims T. 232). Dressed in a brown shirt and black pants, Sims returned to pick up Simmons later that night. Id., Ex. 4 (Evelyn T. 176); (Sims T. 232-33). After Vickie complimented Sims' outfit, id., Ex. 4 (Vickie T. 193), Kimberly told him that Simmons already left McCoy's house, id., Ex. 4 (Kimberly T. 226); (Sims T. 233). Before leaving, Sims “joked around” with Octavia that he was going to steal her “chump change.” See, e.g., id., Ex. 4 (Vickie T. 192); (Sims T. 239). He left shortly thereafter without incident. Id., Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 157).

Later that night, between 11:30 PM and 1:00 AM, five women were still playing cards in McCoy's kitchen: Dorothy, Evelyn, Vickie, Keisha Jackson (“Keisha”), and Kimberly. Doc. [14], Ex. 3 (Morris T. 108); Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 156); (Evelyn T. 174, 180); (Vickie T. 192).^[1] McCoy had withdrawn from the game to clean her house and put her three young children to bed. Id., Ex. 3 (McCoy T. 138, 143); Ex. 4 (Evelyn T. 178:1-6). Suddenly, two men, with black stockings over their faces and guns drawn, entered the house and demanded that McCoy and her guests hand over their money. Id., Ex. 3 (McCoy T. 140-42); Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 157); (Evelyn T. 177). One of the men was dressed in the same brown shirt and black pants that Sims was wearing at McCoy's house earlier that evening. Id., Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 157); (Evelyn T. 174).

When the men entered the house, several of the guests immediately identified the man dressed in brown and black as Sims. First, Evelyn, who testified to knowing Sims for at least fifteen years, identified Sims by his voice, face, and clothing; she had “no doubt” that the man was Sims. Doc. [14], Ex. 4 (Evelyn T. 174-75). Similarly, Vickie, who testified to knowing Sims for about twenty years, was able to identify him by his voice alone. Id., Ex. 4 (Vickie T. 194). She also identified him because he was wearing the same outfit as earlier that day. Id., Ex. 4 (Vickie T. 193, 196). Dorothy and McCoy, who were less familiar with Sims, testified that they identified Sims because he was wearing the same clothes as earlier in the evening. Id., Ex. 3 (McCoy T. 139-41); Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 157-59).

In light of their familiarity with Sims, several of the women initially believed that he was actually joking around. See, e.g., Doc. [14], Ex. 4 (Evelyn T. 177); (Vickie T. 194). However, they quickly realized he was serious and began to fear for their lives. See, e.g., id., Ex. 4 (Evelyn 17778). Sims held the women in the kitchen at gunpoint. Id., Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 157-58); (Evelyn T. 176). The other man cornered McCoy in her bathroom and held her there at gunpoint. Id., Ex. 3 (McCoy T. 138); Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 163); (Evelyn T. 180). With guns in their faces, the women complied with the robbers' demands for their money. See, e.g., id., Ex. 4 (Evelyn T. 176); (Vickie T. 195). Evelyn “threw” her money, around $300, at Sims. Id., Ex. 4 (Evelyn T. 176). Surprised and frightened, Vickie dropped roughly $250 on the floor that she had in her lap, which Sims picked up. Id., Ex. 4 (Vickie T. 195). Dorothy handed over $300. Id., Ex. 4 (Dorothy T. 159). Sims took more than $700 from McCoy's wallet, which was located in the living room. Id., Ex. 3 (McCoy T. 143, 152). After gathering the money, the men fled the scene in a black Pontiac Grand Prix. Id., Ex. 3 (Stringer T. 122).

Presenting an alternative version of events, Sims flatly denied robbing the women at McCoy's house. Doc. [14], Ex. 4 (Sims T. 230). Sims and his sister, Verlinda Sims (“Verlinda”), testified that they were together from around 9:30 PM to 10:30 PM. Id., Ex. 4 (Verlinda T. 208-9); (Sims T. 234). At that time, Sims, dressed in a white shirt and blue jeans, left Verlinda's house and, alone, drove about 30 minutes to Hebron, MS. Id., Ex. 4 (Verlinda T. 211); (Sims T. 234). After briefly stopping at one bar there, Norman's, Sims arrived at Dunk's around 11:30 PM and left the club before it closed. Id., Ex. 4 (Sims T. 234, 240). According to Verlinda, Sims then met her at a local Laurel mall around 12:30 AM and he was eventually arrested near Simmons' house later that night. Id., Ex. 4 (Verlinda T. 209). Sims' nephew, Phillip Sims (“Phillip”), testified that he arrived at Dunk's around 12:00 AM, Sims showed up around 12:25 AM, and they were together at the club until it closed at 2:00 AM. Id., Ex. 4 (Phillip T. 217-19). Phillip further testified that several other people were with Sims and himself at Dunk's, including Phillip's wife, Francesca Sims (“Francesca”), his sister and her boyfriend, a cousin, and “many other people.” Id., Ex. 4 (Phillip T. 218). None of these other individuals testified on Sims' behalf.

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 21, 2014, Sims was indicted on one count of armed robbery, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-79, with McCoy, Evelyn, Dorothy, and Vickie identified as the victims, Doc. [14], Ex. 1, at 9-10. The State later reindicted him on four separate counts of armed robbery against each woman individually. Id., Ex. 1, at 69-70.^[2] On June 23, 2015, Sims was brought to trial. Id., Ex. 1, at 147. After a daylong trial, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to four twenty-eight year terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. Id., Ex. 5, at 48-49. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Sims' conviction and denied his pro se motion for a rehearing. Id., Ex. 7, at 17-39. See also Sims v. State, 213 So.3d 90 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). Thereafter, Sims petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied by that Court on April 20, 2017. Id., Ex. 7, at 2-15. See also Sims v. State, 214 So.3d 1058 (Miss. 2017). Finally, Sims pursued postconviction relief. Id., Ex. 8, at 4-40. On October 17, 2017, he filed an application before the Mississippi Supreme Court seeking leave to proceed with his postconviction motion in state trial court (“PCR application”). Ibid. On January 10, 2018, the Court summarily denied his application. Id., Ex. 8, at 2-3. On May 31, 2018, Sims filed the present federal habeas petition. Doc. [1].

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To determine whether a petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, a federal court is required to apply the standard of review set forth in Section 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), to all claims “adjudicated on the merits” in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). If the adjudicated state court claim is a pure question of law or a mixed question of law and fact, the Court defers to the state court decision unless that decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).

Section 2254(d)(1)'s “‘clearly established' phrase ‘refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of th[e] [Supreme] Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.'” Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 246 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). “[T]he lack of a Supreme Court decision on nearly identical facts does not by itself mean that there is no clearly established federal law, since ‘a general standard' from [the Supreme] Court's cases can supply such law.” Id. (quotation omitted). The “‘contrary to' and ‘unreasonable application' clauses have independent meaning.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002) (citation omitted). A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law” or “if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Richardson v. Quarterman, 537 F.3d 466, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). A decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if a state court “identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of [a] petitioner's case.” Id. at 473 (quotation omitted). When determining whether a decision is objectively unreasonable, the Court considers whether the decision is “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419-20, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014) (quotation omitted).

Under Section 2254(d)(2), a state court's purely factual determinations are presumed to be correct and a federal...