United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Anthony L. Mattison, Petitioner,
Warden Larry Cartledge, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
Anthony L. Mattison, a self-represented state prisoner, filed
this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Â§ 2254. This matter comes before the court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.)
for a Report and Recommendation on the respondent's
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 14.) Pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
Mattison was advised of the summary judgment and dismissal
procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to
respond adequately to the respondent's motion. (ECF No.
15.) Mattison filed a response in opposition to the
respondent's motion. (ECF No. 17.) Having carefully
considered the parties' submissions and the record in
this case, the court concludes that the respondent's
motion for summary judgment should be granted and
Mattison's Petition be denied.
was indicted in July 2007 in Anderson County for possession
with intent to distribute ("PWID") crack cocaine
(2007-GS-04-1889). (App. at 292-93, ECF No. 13-2 at 144-45.)
Mattison was represented by Kurt Tavernier, Esquire, and on
January 11 and January 13-14, 2010 was tried before a jury
and found guilty as charged. (App. at 201, ECF No. 13-2 at
53.) The circuit court sentenced Mattison to twenty-five
years' imprisonment. (App. at 205, ECF No. 13-2 at 57.)
timely appealed and was represented by Kathrine H. Hudgins,
Esquire, of the South Carolina Commission on Indigent
Defense, Office of Appellate Defense, who filed an
Anders brief on Mattison's behalf that
raised the following issue:
Did the trial judge err in refusing to suppress the drugs
when the chain of custody form was notarized five days before
the drugs were actually delivered to SLED for testing?
(ECF No. 13-4.) Mattison filed a pro se response to
the Anders brief in which he raised the following issue:
Did the trial judge err in refusing to suppress all evidence
based on unlawful arrest and search of Defendant.
(ECF No. 13-5.) On February 22, 2012 the South Carolina Court
of Appeals dismissed Mattison's appeal. (State v.
Mattison, Op. No. 2012-UP-084 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 22,
2012), App. at 295, ECF No. 13-2 at 147.) The remittitur was
issued on March 12, 2012. (App. at 296, ECF No. 13-2 at 148.)
filed a pro se application for post-conviction
relief ("PCR") on March 12, 2012 in which he raised
the following claims:
1) My conviction and sentence was in violation of the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and
laws of this state.
2) Trial Court lacked subject natter jurisdiction. Counsel
failed to object to the defective indictment
3) Applicant was denied effective assistance of Appellate
Counsel in violation of the 6th Amendment. See Anders
Brief/Record on Appeal.
4) Appellate Counsel failed to raise my amended indictment
issue on appeal.
5) Appellate Counsel failed to raise my illegal and excessive
sentence claim on appeal/and Motion to Suppress.
6) Counsel ineffective for conceding guilt on applicant's
behalf, without consent.
7) Counsel failed to put the state's case through
8) Counsel failed to challenge the alleged drugs in the
state's possession. Tampering/chain of
9) Counsel failed to object to the Reasonable Doubt jury
10) Counsel's failure to object to trial judges comments
which invited jury to prematurely discuss case.
11) Counsel failed to object to the pitting of witnesses.
12) Counsel ineffective for denying applicant a full and fair
consideration of his Fourth Amendment claims at trial and on
13) Counsel ineffective for vouching for a police officer.
14) Counsel failed to object to solicitor bolstering of
Captain Marsee. (See Mattison v. State of South Carolina,
2012-CP-04-1045; App. at 207-28, ECF No. 13-2 at 59-80)
(errors in original). The State filed a return. (App. at
235-39, ECF No. 13-2 at 87-91.) On October 3, 2012, the PCR
court held an evidentiary hearing at which Mattison appeared
and testified and was represented by Daniel L. Draisen,
Esquire. By order filed December 3, 2012, the
PCR court denied and dismissed with prejudice Mattison's
PCR application. (App. at 276-85, ECF No. 13-2 at 128-37.)
Mattison filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment (App.
at 287-89, ECF No. 13-2 at 139-41), which was denied by order
filed February 15, 2013. (App. at 291, ECF No. 13-2 at 143.)
appeal, Mattison was represented by LaNelle Cantey DuRant,
Esquire, Appellate Defender with the South Carolina
Commission on Indigent Defense, who filed a
Johnson petition for a writ of certiorari that
presented the following issue:
Did the PCR court err in failing to find trial counsel
ineffective for not having the blue cup (open container)
independently tested for alcohol because Petitioner was
arrested for an open container violation which led to the
discovery of the crack cocaine on his person during booking
for the arrest of the open container?
(ECF No. 13-7.) Mattison filed a pro se response to
the Johnson petition in which he raised the following issues:
1). Did the PCR Court violate Applicant's due process
rights by not requiring Trial Counsel to testify in
Applicant's PCR Hearing?
2). Did the PCR Court abuse his discretion when he allowed
the case to go forward without testimony from Applicant's
3). Did the PCR Judge err by not affording the Applicant a
full bite of the apple as mandated with all the PCR Rules of
4). Was the PCR Court's decision an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence
5). Was the PCR Court's decision an unreasonable
determination contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's
precedent and by applying a legal context that should not
have applied and decisions that were objectively
6). Did the PCR Court err by dismissing Applicant's
Motion to Alter/Amend Judgement?
7). Did Applicant's Trial Attorney violate his Sixth
Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when
he conceded during the closing argument without
Petitioner's knowledge or approval, and despite
Petitioner taking a jury trial and clothing himself with the
role of innocence? Applicant contended that his attorney
argued to the jury in closing argument without
Petitioner's knowledge or consent.
8). Was Counsel ineffective for failure to put the
State's case through adversarial testing? Counsel failed
to renew Motion for Probable Cause to preserve for appellate
9). Did the Trial Court lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction to
convict Applicant for an offense when there was no indictment
charging him with that offense at the time jury was sworn?
Counsel should have objected to indictment.
10). Was Counsel ineffective for allowing Trial Court to
amend Indictment # 2007-GS-04-1889?
11). Did the Trial Judge err in refusing to suppress all
evidence based on unlawful arrest and search of Defendant?
12). Was Counsel ineffective for failure to review my
Probable Cause Motion? Counsel failed to argue Probable Cause
13). Was Counsel ineffective for failure to challenge the
admissibility of the alleged drugs?
14). Was Counsel ineffective for failure to object to the
reasonable doubt charge?
15). Was Counsel ineffective for failure to object to
"pitting" of ...