Morris v. Warden William Fox
1:11-cv-00043
| N.D.W. Va. | Nov 1, 2011Background
- Pro se petitioner Morris filed a 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition on March 31, 2011, seeking reversal of his DUI defendants conviction and asking for counsel and in forma pauperis status.
- Respondent answered with a motion for summary judgment; Roseboro notice was issued and petitioner sought appointed counsel; counsel was denied, and petitioner later filed a Roseboro-like response.
- Morris was convicted in October 2008 of DUI causing death and two counts of DUI causing injury; he was sentenced in January 2009 to a stacked term (minimum four years, maximum twelve).
- Morris filed a pro se post-conviction relief motion in March 2009; court substituted counsel and struck the pro se petition; appellate counsel then pursued direct appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court.
- WVSCA affirmed the conviction in a published per curiam opinion on November 19, 2010; Morris presents four federal habeas grounds mirroring the state appeal arguments.
- The court notes exhaustion on three grounds; the fourth ground (sentence reconsideration) remains unexhausted in state court, and the petition is ripe for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grounds 1 and 2 due process sufficiency | Morris asserts hearsay and Crawford-type errors tainted the trial and violated due process. | State-law evidentiary rulings are not cognizable federally; any errors were harmless or not properly preserved. | Grounds 1 and 2 denied; not meriting relief. |
| Ground 3 Brady/Osakalumi claim | Failure to exclude records and preserve exculpatory evidence violated due process. | No Brady violation; car evidence preservation not required; no bad faith shown. | Ground 3 denied; no due process violation established. |
| Ground 4 exhaustion | Sentence-reconsideration issue should be heard in federal court. | Exhaustion required; state remedies not pursued; court lacks jurisdiction to address the claim. | Ground 4 denied for lack of exhaustion; relief should be denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (federal habeas not review state-law evidentiary decisions)
- Weeks v. Angelone, 176 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 1999) (state law questions not cognizable on federal habeas)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require reliability foundation)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (unreasonable application of clearly established federal law)
- Brown v. O'Dea, 227 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2000) (test for materiality of prejudicial evidence in due process review)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (harmless-error standard in habeas corpus review)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for summary judgment; evidence must be more than colorable)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment inferences drawn in light of record)