Robert Anthony Preston, Jr. v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7098
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- 1978: Earline Walker, night clerk at a Li’l Champ, was found nude, mutilated, and near-decapitated in a field ~1.5 miles from her store after ~$574 was taken from the register.
- Preston lived nearby; after the incident he returned with cash, made statements suggesting he had "done it," and had items linking him to the store; physical evidence (blood type, fingerprints, a hair later excluded by DNA) and witness testimony about a knife tied him to the crime scene.
- Trial convictions: first-degree premeditated murder (and related counts). Jury recommended death; trial court found multiple aggravators and sentenced Preston to death; Florida Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal (addressing state sufficiency law for circumstantial evidence).
- Decades later, Preston filed a federal habeas petition asserting (among other claims) that evidence was constitutionally insufficient to prove premeditation under Jackson v. Virginia; the district court denied relief; COA granted by the Eleventh Circuit on the Jackson claim only.
- Eleventh Circuit: (1) held Preston procedurally barred from raising a federal Jackson claim because he never fairly presented it to the Florida Supreme Court (he framed the issue under Florida’s circumstantial‑evidence standard and cited only state cases), and (2) alternatively held that, even on the merits under AEDPA and Jackson, the Florida Supreme Court’s sufficiency ruling was not objectively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Preston) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion/procedural default: Did Preston fairly present a federal Jackson due‑process sufficiency claim to the Florida Supreme Court? | Preston argues his state sufficiency challenge preserved the federal Jackson claim (or at least that identical standards make separate presentation unnecessary). | The State argues Preston relied exclusively on Florida circumstantial‑evidence law and never invoked Jackson, the Due Process Clause, or federal authority, so the federal claim was not fairly presented. | Held: Procedurally barred — Preston did not fairly present a federal claim; he relied on Florida’s special circumstantial‑evidence rule and never cited federal law. |
| Identity of state vs. federal sufficiency standards: Does raising a state circumstantial‑evidence sufficiency claim exhaust an identical federal Jackson claim? | Preston contends the claims are identical in substance, so state briefing sufficed. | The State contends Florida’s circumstantial‑evidence rule (requiring exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence) differs materially from Jackson’s rational‑trier inquiry. | Held: Not identical here — Preston’s reliance on Florida’s more defendant‑friendly circumstantial rule made the claims materially different; exhaustion failed. |
| Merits under AEDPA/Jackson: Was the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that evidence proved premeditation unreasonable under clearly established federal law? | Preston argues evidence could equally support a PCP‑induced frenzied attack and that the state did not exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence. | The State argues the brutal nature and location of wounds, the deadly weapon, Preston’s pre‑ and post‑crime statements, and the remote transport of the victim permitted a rational jury to find premeditation; AEDPA deference applies. | Held: On the merits (alternatively), the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling was not objectively unreasonable under §2254(d); a rational juror could find premeditation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes federal due process sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; state court rulings must be objectively unreasonable to warrant habeas relief)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (defines §2254(d) "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" standards)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650 (Jackson claims get two layers of deference on habeas review)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (exhaustion requirement: fair presentation to state courts)
- Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (must alert state court to federal nature of claim to exhaust)