Church v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
8:25-cv-00784
| M.D. Fla. | Sep 2, 2025Background
- April 16, 2022 shooting outside a St. Petersburg convenience store; Church confronted Paul Watson and shortly after fired multiple shots into Watson’s truck, injuring Earnest Wright (nonfatal).
- Church placed a tote bag nearby containing a machete, a Smith & Wesson revolver (six spent cartridge cases), and live ammunition; ballistic comparison showed similarities but was insufficient for a positive identification.
- Church was tried and convicted of two counts of attempted second-degree murder; the jury specifically found he "personally discharged a firearm." He stipulated to a prior felony and was convicted of felon in possession; mandatory minimum sentences were imposed and run concurrently.
- Church’s direct appeal failed; he filed a timely pro se § 2254 petition raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence (identity), (2) unlawful sentence enhancement, and (3) erroneous felon-in-possession conviction.
- The state appellate court affirmed summary and federal AEDPA standards and exhaustion/procedural-default doctrines govern the habeas review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (identity of shooter) | Church: State lacked fingerprint, DNA, GSR, or surveillance tying him to the shooting; thus insufficient to prove he was the shooter | Respondent: Claim was not fairly presented as a federal identity challenge on direct appeal and is unexhausted and procedurally defaulted; merits would fail anyway | Court: Procedurally defaulted and barred; even if considered, no relief because a rational jury could convict |
| Sentence enhancement (20‑year mandatory minimum) | Church: Jury did not make the factual finding required to impose the 20‑year mandatory minimum | Respondent: Jury expressly found Church "personally discharged a firearm," satisfying Alleyne/Payne requirements | Court: Held enhancement lawful; jury found discharge beyond a reasonable doubt, so mandatory minimum properly imposed |
| Felon‑in‑possession (validity of prior conviction) | Church: Prior offense (organized fraud) had adjudication withheld, so it did not qualify as a predicate felony | Respondent: Issue never raised in state court and is therefore unexhausted and procedurally defaulted | Court: Procedurally defaulted and barred from federal review |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (defines "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" standards under AEDPA)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (AEDPA prevents federal habeas retrials; focus on objective unreasonableness)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (requires state-court decisions be given wide deference under AEDPA)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. 122 (2018) ("look through" rule for unexplained state-court affirmances)
- Carroll v. Secretary, DOC, 574 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2009) (AEDPA governs federal habeas proceedings)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires opportunity for state courts to address federal claims)
- Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (must fairly present federal claim to state court; labeling/citing federal law helps)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Payne, 763 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2014) (applies Alleyne to mandatory minimums)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for Certificate of Appealability)
- Kelley v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, 377 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2004) (requiring presentation of particular legal basis and factual foundation to state courts)
- McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (state court record must clearly present federal claim; no "needle in a haystack")
- Preston v. Secretary, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 785 F.3d 449 (11th Cir. 2015) (insufficiency argument not fairly presented as federal claim when only state law was cited)
- Smith v. Jones, 256 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2001) (procedural default bars federal review when state remedies no longer available)