Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-0181 Section "A"
May 16, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER'S § 2254 APPLICATION WITH PREJUDICE AS STONE -BARRED
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Having reviewed the complete record federal and state, including the petitioner's § 2254 Application and Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the State's Response to Habeas Corpus Petition, and the applicable law, this Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons set forth herein below, the Court has determined that the petition is barred pursuant to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3052, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), and is for that reason the petitioner's application is DENIED and his § 2254 petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, is now a statutorily mandated determination under 18 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), to wit: A district court may hold an evidentiary hearing only when the petitioner has shown either that the claim relies on a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law that was previously unavailable, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(i), or the claim relies on a factual basis that could not have been previously discovered by exercise of due diligence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii); and the facts underlying the claim show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have convicted the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(B).
Petitioner, Dwight Leblanc, is a state prisoner presently incarcerated at Winn Correctional Center, in Winnfield, Louisiana. Petitioner's incarceration is the result of his July 1, 1998 conviction of possession of cocaine, and subsequent September 23, 1998 conviction and sentence of ten (10) years as a second felony offender under La. R.S. 15:529.1 pursuant to September 23, 1998 multiple bill sentencing hearing.
Petitioner was charged in a bill of information with possession with the intent to distribute "crack" cocaine in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1). Pursuant to hearing on April 16, 1998, the state trial judge denied petitioner's Motion to Suppress Evidence, and pursuant to a jury trial conducted on July 1, 1998, the petitioner was found guilty of the lesser included offense — simple possession of cocaine. See, Bill of Information filed in "State of Louisiana v. Dwight LeBlanc," Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Docket No. 393-376 "F" [State Record, at p. 3, Vol. II of III]; Transcript of April 16, 1998 Hearing on Motion to Suppress the Evidence [Fed.Rec.Doc. No. 2 and State Record, Vol. II of III]; Motion to Suppress Evidence [State Record, at p. 62, Vol. II of III]; July 1, 1998 Transcript of Trial [State Record, Vol. II of III]; July 1, 1998 Jury Verdict finding petitioner guilty of the lesser included offense, simple possession [State Record, at p. 40, Vol. II of III]
See, Court Minutes and Docket Master Entry dated September 23, 1998 and in "State of Louisiana v. Dwight Leblanc," Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Docket No. 393-376 "F" [State Record, Vol. III of III]; September 23, 1998 Multiple Bill Hearing and Sentencing Transcripts and the State's Multiple Bill noting petitioner's predicate conviction of April 28, 1995 in case number 366-088 "F", Orleans Parish Criminal District Court pursuant to his guilty plea to violating La. R.S. 14:(25)30 (accessory to first degree murder) [State Record, Vol. II of III].
BACKGROUND
It is not disputed that petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies with respect to his solo federal habeas claim that the Criminal District Court, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and/or the Louisiana Supreme Court erred in denying petitioner's Motion to Suppress Cocaine Seized in Violation of His Fourth Amendment Rights and/or in misapplied applicable search and seizure law.As previously mentioned, on November 21, 1997, the State filed a multiple bill charging the petitioner, Dwight LeBlanc ("LeBlanc") with one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A). The defendant, represented by court-appointed counsel, Townsend Myers entered a plea of not guilty on April 6, 1998 and the state trial court granted time to file pleadings and set motions for hearing on April 16, 1998. On April 16, 1998, the defendant appeared with court-appointed counsel for a hearing on his Motion to Suppress Evidence.
See Transcript of April 16, 1998 Motion Hearing before the Honorable Dennis J. Waldron in "State of Louisiana v. Dwight LeBlanc," Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Docket No. 393-376 "F" [Fed.Rec.Doc. 2 and State Record, at Vol II of III].
At the April 16, 1998 hearing on the Motion to Suppress, Sgt. Steven Imbraguglio testified that on the day in question, July 16, 1997, at approximately 1:00 p.m., he accompanied Detectives Michael Lauman and Clarence Guillard to the 1200 block of Alabo Street — the familiar location of an apartment complex and a site where they had affected numerous narcotics arrests in the past.
See April 16, 1998 Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Suppress, at p. 3 [State Record, Volume II of III].
Sgt. Imbraguglio further testified that he observed the defendant LeBlanc engage in a transaction with a black male in a white Grand Am. Following that, the officers observed the defendant approach a white Oldsmobile, open the trunk, and place an object in its trunk. As the defendant placed the object in the trunk of the white Oldsmobile, the white Grand Am sped off river-bound. Based upon their knowledge of the area and their belief based on their experience particularly at that location that they had just observed a hand-to-hand narcotics transaction, the officers approached the defendant. LeBlanc, who after having looked in their direction, crouched down near the rear tire, apparently trying to avoid detection or being noticed by the officers. Sgt. Imbraguglio testified, that usually the suspect evades the stop in this neighborhood by running through the apartment complex, jumping a fence in the rear, and existing on Gordon Street. Upon questioning, LeBlanc [ i.e., who had just been observed opening the trunk of the white Oldsmobile and placing an object in it, then, after glancing in the direction of the officers, crouching down near the rear tire of the vehicle seemingly to avoid detection] denied any knowledge of that vehicle or to whom it belonged. The keys to the Oldsmobile were then taken from the defendant, and in the trunk officers found a plastic bag with ten pieces of white compressed powder. The defendant was arrested and found to be in possession of $117.00 in currency. It was later determined that the white Oldsmobile was in fact registered to the defendant, who had denied any connection with the vehicle at the scene at the time of he was stopped.
Id., at pp. 3-4.
Id., at 4, 6 and 8.
Id., at 7 and 8.
Id., at 5.
Id., at 8 and 9.
Id., at 4.
Id., at 4.
At the close of the April 16, 1998 hearing on the Motion to Suppress, the state trial judge held that exigent circumstances, probable cause, and the automobile exception, would permit the search and seizure by the officers on the day and time in question.
Id., at 10.
As previously mentioned, the defendant proceeded to trial on July 1, 1998, then assisted by retained counsel, and was convicted of the lesser included offense, simple possession. LeBlanc pleaded not guilty to the multiple bill filed by the State on July 24, 1998. On September 18, 1998, the trial court denied LeBlanc's Motion for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal and for new trial. On September 23, 1998, pursuant to hearing, LeBlanc was convicted and sentenced under La. R.S. 15:529.1 as a second offender to ten (10) years at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The state trial court then denied petitioner's motion to reconsider sentence and granted his motion for appeal. At all pertinent times, LeBlanc was represented by retained counsel.
On appeal on January 26, 2000 under docket number 99-KA-0147, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a seven-page unpublished opinion affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence. [State Record, Vol. I of III]. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, finding no errors patent addressed the argument raised by petitioner that the state trial judge erred in finding probable cause based upon the mere observation that Leblanc and another person exchanged an object for currency, citing State v. Thornton, 621 So.2d 173 (La.App. 4th Cir.), cert. denied, 642 So.2d 173 (La. 1994).
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit distinguished the Thornton case, and determined that the operative facts were more closely analagous to the facts set forth in Louisiana cases, State v. Davis, 612 So.2d 1052, 1053 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1993) and State v. Young, 642 So.2d 255 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1994), since according to Sgt. Imbraguglio's trial testimony, Leblanc crouched down beside the vehicle attempting to avoid the officer's attention after placing the object in the trunk, and then, the defendant disavowed knowledge of the owner of the car to police officers who had just observed him open the trunk of the car with a key. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit discerned "little difference" between the pertinent facts adduced at July 1, 1998 trial and the facts adduced at the April 16, 1998 evidentiary hearing conducted in connection with the defendant's Motion to Suppress.
The trial court found probable cause for the arrest and search and seizure. Search of the trunk was justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which would allow a search if there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband. In light of Young and Davis, and finding the state trial judge's decision not manifestly erroneous, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed Leblanc's conviction and sentence.
See Louisiana Fourth Circuit's Opinion in State of Louisiana v. Dwight Leblanc, Docket No. 99-KA-0147, at p. 3 [State Record, Vol. I of III].
On September 22, 2000, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied petitioner's writ application filed under docket number 00-K-0606. See State of Louisiana v. Dwight Leblanc, No. 00 K 0606 [State Record, Vol. I of III].
On November 18, 2000 pursuant to the "mailbox" rule, Leblanc filed the instant petition seeking federal habeas relief on precisely the same issue raised and adjudicated in the state court proceedings discussed hereinabove. This Court's review of petitioner's writ of certiorari shows that his solo Fourth Amendment claim was presented to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Petitioner has exhausted his claim in the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Petitioner's conviction became final on October 6, 2000 — fourteen days after the September 22, 2000 decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court denying writs. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 922. The AEDPA requires generally, that a petitioner bring his Section 2254 claims within one year of the date that his conviction became final. The State does not dispute that Leblanc time filed his federal habeas application pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned the solo federal habeas claim raised by petitioner, which Fourth Amendment claim was also adjudicated in the state courts including the Louisiana Supreme Court, was that his conviction was obtained by the use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure and the state courts erred by overruling his motion to suppress such evidence.
It is well-settled law that when the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a federal court may not grant a state inmate federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search and seizure was used to convict him.
Stone v. Powell, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3052 (1976). See also Williams v. Brown, 609 F.2d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 1980) ("in the absence of allegations that the processes provided by a state to fully and fairly litigate fourth amendment claims are routinely and systematically applied in such a way as to prevent the actual litigation of fourth amendment claims on the merits," petitioner's claims cannot succeed); and Christian v. McKaskle, 731 F.2d 1196, 1199 (5th Cir. 1984) (same)
The deciding factor in the applicability of the Stone v. Powell principle to a particular case is whether the state processes afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of fourth amendment claims. If the state processes afford the defendant the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue of whether evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should be excluded, then the holding of Stone v. Powell precludes federal habeas corpus consideration of those issues. The bar of Stone v. Powell applies despite any trial court error in deciding the merits of petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim.
Caver v. Alabama, 577 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1978). See also Davis v. Blackburn, 803 F.2d 1371, 1372 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (noting that the limitations imposed by Stone reflect important policy considerations such as comity and interests in finality and that the burden is on petitioner to plead and prove a want of opportunity to fairly and fully litigate any fourth amendment claims in state courts)
Caver, 577 F.2d at 1191.
Andrews v. Collins, 21 F.3d 612, 631-32 (5th Cir. 1994); and Christian, 731 F.2d at 1199 n. 1 (citing its precedents in Caver v. Alabama, 577 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1978) and Swicegood v. Alabama, 577 F.2d 1322, 1324-25 (5th Cir. 1978) holding that the Stone bar applies despite state court error in deciding the merits of a defendant's fourth amendment claims).
In the case at bar, petitioner litigated the search and seizure issue before the state trial court (which conducted a full evidentiary hearing), on appeal before the Louisiana Fourth Circuit (which issued a seven-page unpublished opinion on the merits affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence), and before the State's highest criminal tribunal (which denied writs).
See State Record, Vol. I of III.
See State of Louisiana v. Dwight Leblanc, 768 So.2d 601 (La. 2000).
A thorough review of the state record in this matter reveals that the material facts were adequately developed by the state courts pursuant to both the April 16, 1998 evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's Motion to Suppress the Evidence and to the July 1, 1998 state court trial on the merits. The record amply demonstrates that the State has provided Leblanc, assisted by counsel at all pertinent times, with the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his Fourth Amendment claim. Petitioner cannot seriously argue otherwise.
For all of the above and forgoing reasons, Stone bars this claim. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner, Dwight LeBlanc's federal habeas application is DENIED and his petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE since it is barred under the rule of Stone v. Powell.