DANIELS v. CREWS, 3:13-cv-00149

Background

Daniels pleaded nolo contendere in 2000 to aggravated assault with a firearm and received an aggregate sentence that was later modified and partially converted to probation; a VOP was later filed after new offenses.
In 2004 Daniels was tried and convicted of robbery with a firearm and burglary of a conveyance; he received consecutive life terms, later corrected to concurrent sentences on direct appeal.
Daniels filed multiple Rule 3.850 postconviction motions and appeals; the state courts struck/amended and ultimately denied several motions as facially insufficient, untimely, or successive.
In federal habeas (filed April 1, 2013) Daniels raised two principal claims: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for inadequate investigation, failing to preserve evidence, failing to call an alibi, and failing to move for judgment of acquittal on certain counts; (2) trial counsel was intoxicated/using illegal drugs during trial, causing structural error.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Daniels failed to fairly present/exhaust Ground One on appeal (procedural default) and Ground Two was barred by Florida’s Rule 3.850 timeliness rule; Daniels offered no cause and prejudice or new evidence of actual innocence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Ineffective-assistance claims (investigation, alibi, preserving evidence) — exhaustion	Daniels argues counsel’s investigation and trial performance were deficient and raised those claims in his Rule 3.850 motion.	State argues Daniels did not fairly present the substantive IAC claims on appeal (he briefed only a procedural dismissal issue), so they are unexhausted/defaulted.	Court held claims unexhausted and procedurally defaulted because Daniels chose to file an appellate brief but raised only a procedural issue; federal review barred.
2. Counsel intoxication/drug-use structural-error claim — timeliness	Daniels contends he discovered counsel’s drug conviction in 2011 and thus the claim is newly discovered; alleges structural error.	State argues the claim is untimely under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) and, in any event, successive or dismissed; public sources of counsel’s arrest/conviction were available earlier.	Court held the claim was time-barred under Rule 3.850(b)(1); Daniels failed to show diligence, cause and prejudice, or new reliable evidence of innocence, so claim is procedurally barred.
3. Application of structural-error doctrine to procedural bar	Daniels asserts counsel’s intoxication is a structural error not subject to procedural default.	State contends structural-error label does not excuse compliance with state procedural rules.	Court held structural-error characterization does not overcome procedural default; default rules (cause/prejudice or actual innocence) still apply.
4. Certificate of appealability (COA)	Daniels would presumably seek a COA to appeal denial of habeas relief.	Respondent opposes COA; magistrate judge finds no substantial showing of constitutional denial.	Court recommended denial of a COA.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (structural-error analysis)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default and federal review limits)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (cause and prejudice framework to overcome default)
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (requirement to present federal claim in state court)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (fair presentation requirement)
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (one full round of state appellate review)
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (how to fairly present federal claims)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual-innocence gateway to overcome default)
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (procedural default applies even for some structural claims)