Calloway v. Reynolds, 4:15-cv-02137

Background

Petitioner Antonio Calloway pleaded guilty in South Carolina state court to multiple charges (attempted murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, PWDCVC, attempted armed robbery) on May 14, 2012 and was sentenced to concurrent lengthy terms (judge intended a 25‑year controlling term).
Calloway filed a PCR application raising numerous ineffective‑assistance and plea‑involuntariness claims; an evidentiary hearing was held and the PCR court denied relief on February 17, 2014.
On appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, a Johnson certiorari petition was filed and denied; remittitur issued March 2015.
Calloway filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising three principal grounds: (1) plea involuntariness/ misunderstanding of sentencing, (2) counsel’s failure to advise of trial rights (including confronting a recanting witness), and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to obtain/present mitigation evidence or a mitigation expert.
The magistrate judge applied AEDPA deference, reviewed the state record (plea colloquy, PCR testimony), credited plea counsel’s testimony over Calloway’s, and recommended granting respondent’s summary judgment and dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Calloway’s guilty plea was involuntary due to misunderstanding sentencing/recommendation	Calloway says counsel failed to explain plea terms and that he relied on a supposed 10‑year deal, so plea was involuntary	Record and plea counsel show no promised 10‑year recommendation; plea colloquy establishes awareness of maximums and voluntary plea	Denied — plea found voluntary; state court credibility findings upheld under AEDPA
Whether counsel failed to advise of trial rights (right to confront witness; recanted statement)	Counsel did not inform Calloway of trial rights or available defenses, prejudicing his ability to proceed to trial	Issue was raised at PCR but not preserved on certiorari; procedurally defaulted for federal habeas review	Denied — procedurally barred from federal review
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigation evidence / hire mitigation expert	Counsel should have obtained a mitigation expert and presented fuller social/mental health mitigation, which could have affected sentence	Plea counsel presented detailed mitigation based on client history; no mitigation expert or evidence was produced at PCR to show prejudice; counsel reasonably declined to seek one	Denied — Strickland prongs not met; PCR factual findings credited under AEDPA
Whether federal habeas relief is available despite state adjudication (AEDPA standard)	Calloway contends state rulings were incorrect and credibility findings flawed	Respondent argues state court applied correct law and its factual/credibility findings are entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254	Recommendation to grant summary judgment for Respondent; habeas petition dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (guilty plea admissions are presumptively binding absent concrete reason to set aside)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland applied to guilty‑plea prejudice: must show reasonable probability he would have gone to trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (defines AEDPA deference: unreasonable application/contrary to clearly established federal law)
Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (1983) (federal habeas courts should not redetermine credibility found by state courts)
Cagle v. Branker, 520 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2008) (discusses deference to state court credibility findings in § 2254 review)
Crawford v. United States, 519 F.2d 347 (4th Cir. 1975) (statements made at plea colloquy are conclusively established absent reasonable allegation to the contrary)