Taylor v. May

1

MILTON TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. ROBERT MAY, Warden, et al., Respondents.

Civil Action No. 11-1251-CFC

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 31, 2022

Tiffani D. Hurst, Esquire, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Counsel for Petitioner.

Kathryn Joy Garrison, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CONNOLLY, CHIEF JUDGE

Presently pending before the Court is an Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Milton Taylor. (D.I. 67) The State filed an Answer in opposition, to which Petitioner filed a Reply. (D.I. 72; D.I. 85) As ordered by the Court, the Parties filed supplemental briefing on whether the post-2014 versions of Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) and (i)(2) constitute independent and adequate state procedural rules for procedural default purposes. (D.I. 86; D.I. 89; D.I. 90) For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny the Petition.

BACKGROUND

On the morning of March 23, 2000, Steven Butler ("Butler"), a maintenance worker at the Compton Townhouse complex in Wilmington, was awaiting the arrival of some contractors when he discovered two unattended children playing in the courtyard. He recognized the children, ages two and four, as those belonging to [Theresa] Williams. Before he left to supervise the contractors, Butler instructed the children to stay away from the street until their mother came outside to join them.

Williams and her sister, Tawana Ricks ("Ricks") previously planned to do some shopping together that morning, but Williams never arrived at the predetermined location. When Ricks could not reach her sister by telephone she decided to visit Williams' home. Ricks arrived at the Compton Townhouse complex and discovered her sister's two youngest children, unsupervised and playing in the vicinity of her sister's home. As Ricks was knocking on the locked door to Williams' home, Nathaniel Henry ("Henry"), Williams' uncle, arrived to deliver some furniture. Ricks and Henry grew increasingly concerned as their attempts to locate Williams failed.

Butler then joined Ricks and Henry. Upon Ricks' urging, Butler agreed to open Williams' door. Once inside, Butler and Henry discovered Williams' badly beaten and bloody body concealed beneath a blanket with a bicycle on top. Williams was bleeding from her nose and had a cord wrapped around her neck. Williams was not breathing and Butler called 911. Williams was pronounced dead at the scene. An autopsy later revealed that Williams was strangled, beaten and cut. The autopsy also revealed that Williams was pregnant, and that the baby died as a result of Williams' death.

[Petitioner] was identified as a suspect in the murder when police learned that he had a relationship with Williams and that he had been seen in the vicinity of her home on the morning of March 23, 2000. On March 25, 2000 the police received a tip that [Petitioner] was standing at a pay phone on the corner of 9th and Madison Streets. The police responded to the tip and placed [Petitioner] under arrest. Although the arresting officers were aware that [Petitioner] was wanted for questioning in regard to Williams' murder, the purpose for the arrest was an outstanding bench warrant.

At the police station, [Petitioner] was taken to an interview room where Officer Ronald Muniz ("Muniz") began routine inventory procedures. Muniz removed a folded piece of paper from the front pocket of [Petitioner's] hooded sweatshirt and placed it on the table. Shortly thereafter, Detective James Diana ("Diana") entered the room, picked up the piece of paper, opened it and began to read it. He quickly realized that the paper contained a handwritten confession (the "Confession Letter") and therefore removed the letter from the other inventoried items so that it could be included as evidence.

* * *

The confession read in pertinent part: My name is [Petitioner], I was born on 11-15-68, my Social Security number is XXX-XX-XXXX. I am wanted by the Wilmington police for the murder of Theresa Irene Williams a.k.a. Treety. I confess that I did kill Treety and left Terrel and her daughter outside because I couldn't hurt either one of them. After I strangled her I stuck a long kitchen knife in her mouth and cut something in her throat.

* * *

[The parties stipulated that [Petitioner] wrote the Confession Letter.] The Confession Letter provided the basis for a search warrant for the Victim's car which was found parked on a street in New Castle. Inside the car the police found a thirteen-inch knife wrapped in a bloodstained tee shirt. The blood on the shirt matched the Victim's blood type. During the investigation it became clear that the apparent motive for the murder was that [Petitioner's] current girlfriend had given him an ultimatum: end all contact with Williams or lose the current girlfriend. Taylor had apparently gone to see Williams to end contact with her and killed her in the process.

Taylor v. State, 822 A.2d 1052, 1054-55 (Del. 2003).

On April 24, 2000, a New Castle County grand jury indicted Petitioner for first degree murder. (D.I. 72 at 1) Petitioner filed a motion to suppress Petitioner's statement that he made in the "turnkey" area of the police department prior to his videotaped police statement and his handwritten confession letter that the police discovered during an inventory search of his belongings once in custody at the department. (D.I. 41-46 at 1-2) The Superior Court denied the suppression motion after a conducting an evidentiary hearing and reviewing briefing submitted by both parties. (D.I. 41-4) Following a three-day trial, a Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of first degree murder. The Superior Court held a two-day penalty hearing and sentenced him to death. (Id. at 1-2) Petitioner appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. See Taylor, 822 A.2d at 1058.

In December 2003, the Superior Court appointed two conflict counsel ("first Rule 61 counsel") to represent Petitioner during his post-conviction proceedings. (D.I. 72 at 2) In March 2006, Petitioner filed an motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. (D.I. 73-1 at 22, Entry No. 144) The State answered the amended Rule 61 motion in June 2005. (D.I. 73-1 at 23, Entry No. 161) In December 2006 and January 2007, the Superior Court held 11 days of evidentiary hearings, and then held an additional 2 days of evidentiary hearings in March 2007.

(D.I. 73-1 at 25-26, Entry Nos. 181 and 187) Petitioner filed a Memorandum in Support of his Rule 61 motion ("first Rule 61 motion") in September 2009. (D.I. 73-3) The State filed an answer to the first Rule 61 motion in January 2010 (D.I. 73-5), and Petitioner filed a reply in March 2010 (D.I. 73-6). The Superior Court denied Petitioner's first Rule 61 motion on August 6, 2010. See State v. Taylor, 2010 WL 3511272 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 6, 2010). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on October 25, 2011. See Taylor v. State, 32 A.3d 374, 391 (Del. 2011).

In 2012, now represented by the federal public defender's office, Petitioner filed in this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (D.I. 11) He filed an amended petition in June 2013, to which the State filed an answer in August 2013. (D.I. 34; D.I. 39) In April 2014, the case was stayed pending Petitioner's exhaustion of claims to be presented to the Delaware state courts in a second Rule 61 proceeding. (D.I. 46)

On September 9, 2016, the Delaware Superior Court stayed Petitioner's second Rule 61 proceeding pending the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Powell v. State, 153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016) regarding the retroactivity of its ruling in Rauf v. State, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016) that Delaware's capital sentencing procedure was unconstitutional. (D.I. 73-1 at 41-42, Entry No. 271) On April 28, 2017, following the rulings in Powell and Rauf, the Superior Court vacated Petitioner's death sentence and resentenced him to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole. (D.I. 73-1 at 44, Entry No. 282) Petitioner did not appeal his resentencing.

In July 2017, Petitioner filed in the Superior Court a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, arguing that he should have been resentenced pursuant to the class A felony statute, 11 Del. Code § 4205 (2003). (D.I. 73-1 at 45, Entry No. 288) The Superior Court denied the Rule 35 motion in August 2017 (D.I. 73-1 at 46, Entry No. 293), and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision. See Taylor v. State, 2018 WL 121021 (Del. Mar. 7, 2018).

On August 25, 2017, Petitioner filed an amended second Rule 61 motion ("second Rule 61 motion"). (D.I. 73-1 at 46, Entry No. 294) The Superior Court denied the second Rule 61 motion as procedurally barred, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on February 27, 2019. See State v. Taylor, 2018 WL 3199537 (Del. Super. Ct. June 28, 2018); Taylor v. State, 206 A.3d 825 (Table), 2019 WL 990718 (Del. Feb. 27, 2019).

In March 2019, Petitioner filed a motion to lift the stay on the instant proceedings, along with a proposed stipulated briefing schedule. (D.I. 56; D.I. 57) In June 2019 Petitioner filed a second amended habeas petition, to which the State filed an objection. (D.I. 62; D.I. 63) The Court lifted the stay, accepted the State's objections, and ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition that included caselaw to support the arguments asserted therein. (D.I. 66) In December 2019, Petitioner filed a second amended petition ("Petition"). (D.I. 67) The State filed an Answer, to which Petitioner filed a Reply. (D.I. 72; D.I. 85) In September 2021, the Court orde...