Wise v. Middlebrooks

1

CHRISTOPHER WISE PETITIONER v. WARDEN SCOTT MIDDLEBROOKS RESPONDENT

Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-346-DPJ-LGI

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

July 31, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

LAKEYSHA GREER ISAAC UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Christopher Wise seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After a review of the entire record and all the applicable law, the undersigned recommends that his petition be dismissed with prejudice.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2017, a Hinds County jury found Wise guilty of manslaughter in the death of Jerrell Brown, and he was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). The relevant facts are accurately described in the state court's opinion and are incorporated verbatim here.

On the night of January 25, 2015, in Jackson, Mississippi, Marcus Ware testified that he received a call from Brown asking to buy drugs. Ware told Brown to come to his apartment and purchase the drugs from Wise. Brown came to the apartment bought ecstasy pills and marijuana from Wise, and then left the apartment. Later, Brown called Ware complaining that the pills were not effective. Ware said that Brown indicated he was coming back to Ware's apartment. Ware stated that Wise waited on Brown, but left when Brown failed to show. Shortly after, Wise called Ware and told him that he had shot Brown. According to Ware, Wise implied that Brown had tried to rob him. Wise then told Ware, “You ain't seen nothing. You don't know nothing.”

Benard Vaughn, Brown's cousin, testified that he and Brown were with friends who wanted ecstasy. Brown then called Ware and asked for help in purchasing ecstasy and marijuana. Ware told them to come to his apartment and buy the drugs from Wise. Later at Ware's apartment, Brown purchased $100 worth of ecstasy pills and marijuana from Wise. According to both Vaughn and Wise, Brown pulled a large amount of cash from his pocket in order to pay for the drugs. Vaughn stated that he and Brown left to share the drugs with friends at a nearby apartment.

After several hours, Vaughn went to wait for Brown in Brown's car. While waiting in the passenger seat, Vaughn fell asleep. He was roused by Brown, who told Vaughn that they were leaving. Vaughn fell back asleep and remained asleep until a police officer woke him and informed him that Brown had been shot. Vaughn then saw Brown's body slumped over in the driver's seat of the car. Vaughn testified that he knew Brown had called Ware complaining that the pills Wise had sold him were not effective. Vaughn also stated that Brown was not carrying his weapon that night.

Alvin McDaniel, a patrolman with the Jackson Police Department (JPD), responded to the scene. McDaniel saw a white car with the driver's side door ajar. A deceased male, later determined to be Brown, was slumped over in the driver's seat with one leg partially protruding from the car. McDaniel noticed another male in the passenger's side seat who was sleeping. McDaniel also found a holstered gun on the driver's side floorboard.

Detective Ella Thomas with JPD testified that she investigated Brown's murder. Detective Thomas noted that Brown's car had blood on the outside and inside of the driver's side door. Brown's holstered gun was found on the floorboard under his legs. Three shell casings from a .9 mm handgun were found at the scene.

After locating Wise several months later, Detective Thomas interviewed him. Wise told her that Brown had threatened him with a gun, but that he was able to grab his gun and shoot at Brown over his left shoulder. Wise said Brown then ran away.

Robert Watts, a crime scene investigator with JPD, testified that he recovered three spent shell casings from the scene and that the location of the shell casings indicated the shooter was moving. Watts testified that “[t]he shooter started in the parking lot, moved towards the sidewalk and then to the rear of the vehicle as they were firing.”

The forensic pathologist for the State testified that Brown died from two gunshot wounds to his back. Both shots entered Brown's back-one exited his left chest area and the other through the top right of his shoulder. The pathologist opined that the gun was fired from more than a few feet away.

Wise testified in his own defense. He stated that when he left Ware's apartment, Brown was waiting for him and acting aggressively. He testified that Brown placed his gun on the back of Wise's head and told Wise to be still. Wise then grabbed his gun from his car and fired shots over his left shoulder. Wise stated he “fired an initial burst of shots over my left shoulder.” At that point, Brown began to run, but Wise continued to fire his gun. Wise never saw Brown's gun.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, Wise's self-defense theory was rejected, and he was convicted of culpable negligence manslaughter. Aggrieved, Wise appealed his conviction alleging trial errors, discovery and speedy trial violations, and insufficiency of the evidence. Finding no error, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Wise's conviction and sentence. Wise v. State, 263 So.3d 688 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). Subsequent petitions for rehearing and certiorari were denied. Later, Wise initiated state post-conviction proceedings but his claims were found to be procedurally barred and without merit by the Mississippi Supreme Court on post-conviction review. Wise now brings the instant petition and asserts as grounds for relief the same issues rejected in state court, alleging in nearly every claim that he was deprived of due process violations and effective assistance of counsel (as stated by Wise):

Ground One: Petitioner was denied due process where his indictment was fatally defective and requires reversal of his conviction.

Ground Two: Petitioner is actually innocent of culpable negligence manslaughter and the verdict of guilty for culpable negligence manslaughter is manifest injustice where viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence does not support a verdict for culpable negligence manslaughter, and counsel was ineffective in failing to make this argument at trial [and] on direct appeal and/or in failing to object to an instruction on culpable negligence manslaughter.

Ground Three: Petitioner was denied his right to due process, denied his statutory right to a speedy trial, and denied the right to effective assistance of counsel to protect these denied rights, and such requires the conviction to be vacated.

Ground Four: Petitioner was denied his right to due process, denied his right to a fair trial, and denied the right to effective assistance of counsel to protect these denied rights, where counsel allowed improper use of prejudicial evidence of other uncharged crimes and such requires the conviction to be vacated.

Ground Five: Petitioner's counsel was ineffective in failing to seek [a] hearing on [the] suppression of pre-trial statement that included statements which were prejudicial to the defense where the pre-trial statement was obtained in violation of right to counsel.

Ground Six: Petitioner was denied due process, his right to a fair trial, direct appeal and effective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to properly correct the court on appeal regarding disclosure of victim's criminal background, and where trial counsel failed to seek a proper continuance after the requested material was not provided where both the trial judge and district attorney agreed that petitioner was entitled to such and where such failure broke down and detracted from his self-defense theory.

Ground Seven: In light of this court's adoption of the Daubert Rule as the standard for admissibility of expert witness testimony, the petitioner was denied due process of law when the expert was allowed to testify and give damaging evidence that shatters h[i]s defense without compliance with the rule of law in Daubert and counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the expert testimony.

Ground Eight: Petitioner was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to have the jury instructed on the proper and limited use of evidence of flight where that evidence of flight was prejudicial to the defense.

Ground Nine: Petitioner's conviction was obtained in violation of due process where the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Petitioner did not act in necessary self-defense.

Ground Ten: Petitioner's conviction was obtained in violation of the constitutional right to due process and right to a fair trial where the State denied him discovery material to his defense and ordered by the trial court

Having reviewed the record and all the applicable law, the undersigned submits that Wise is not entitled to relief on any of the aforementioned claims and the instant petition should be dismissed with prejudice.

Discussion

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) precludes this Court from granting Petitioner federal habeas corpus relief on claims adjudicated on the merits unless that adjudication:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This court reviews questions of law as well as mixed questions of law and fact pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) of the AEDPA, while questions of fact are reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).

Under the...