Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chandler v. McFadden

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division

June 6, 2017

Terrell Chandler, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Joseph McFadden, Lieber Corr. Inst., Respondent.

          AMENDED OPINION & ORDER

          HENRY M. HERLONG, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.[1] Terrell Chandler (“Chandler”) is a state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends granting the Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Chandler's petition with prejudice.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Chandler is currently incarcerated at the Lieber Correctional Institution, a South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) facility. In November 2008, Chandler was indicted in South Carolina state court for murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. (Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3 (App'x 1049-53), ECF No. 9-3.) After a jury trial, Chandler was found guilty on June 10, 2010. (Id. Ex. 3 (App'x 1023-24), ECF No. 9-3.) Chandler was sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment for murder and 5 years' imprisonment for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, such terms to be served consecutively. (Id. Ex. 3 (App'x 1046), ECF No. 9-3.)

         Chandler appealed his conviction. (Id. Ex. 4 (Final Br. of Appellant), ECF No. 9-4.) The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed Chandler's conviction in an unpublished opinion dated May 23, 2012. (Id. Ex. 5 (May 23, 2012 Order), ECF No. 9-5.) On August 1, 2012, Chandler filed an application for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1 (App'x 1055-62), ECF No. 9-3.) An evidentiary hearing was held on November 18, 2013. (Id. Ex. 1 (App'x 1073-1132), ECF No. 9-3.) On October 27, 2014, the PCR court denied Chandler's PCR application. (Id. Ex. 1 (App'x 1133-45), ECF No. 9-3). Chandler filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the South Carolina Supreme Court on October 29, 2014. (Id. Ex. 8 (Pet. for Writ of Cert. 4) ECF No. 9-8.) On April 15, 2016, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied Chandler's petition for writ of certiorari. (Id. Ex. 9 (Apr. 15, 2016 Order), ECF No. 9-9.)

         Chandler, acting pro se, filed the instant § 2254 petition on August 23, 2016, [2] raising the following grounds for relief:

Ground One: The South Carolina Court of Appeals decision affirming Petitioner's conviction and sentence, that his statement was voluntary, was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the trial.
Supporting Facts: Petitioner was placed in a 10x10 hot and stuffy room for five hours for interrogation. Only a short portion of this interrogation was recorded. Petitioner gave a written statement after being told that if he refused to make a statement he would be charged with murder. The lead detective (Osborne) stepped out of the room and a Detective Fleming entered the small room [detective that told Petitioner he had to make a statement or be charged with murder].
Ground Two: Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel
Supporting Facts: Trial counsel rendered constitutionally deficient assistance in failing to request that the jury be instructed that the testimony of a co-defendant who provides evidence against the defendant [Petitioner] for expected gain, the hope of reward or for personal advantage or vindication, must be examined and weighed by the jury with the greater care than the testimony of an ordinary witness.
Ground Three: Due Process Violation-Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Supporting Facts: The state proffered false testimony from co-defendant and state's witness Steven Brown in regards to the Petitioner's involvement in the murder of Calvin Gibbs. Brown testified at Petitioner's trial that he entered into a proffer agreement with the state. That all he had to do-give truthful information to the solicitor's office-to tell the truth.
Ground Four: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel violation of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, Due Process violation
Supporting Facts: Appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issues of accomplice liability jury charge requested by the State that was objected to and argued before the trial court and overruled, on direct appeal.
Ground Five: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel, violation of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, Due Process violation.
Supporting Facts: Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise “The trial court erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict on the charge of murder because the State failed to present any substantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of Appellant's guilt.”

(§ 2254 Pet. 5-10, 16-27, ECF No. 1 (errors in original).)

         On October 11, 2016, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 8.) Chandler responded on December 5, 2016. (Resp. Opp'n Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 14.) On December 12, 2016, Respondent replied. (Reply, ECF No. 18.) Magistrate Judge Hodges issued her Report and Recommendation on April 25, 2017, recommending granting Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Chandler's petition with prejudice. (R&R 22, ECF No. 20.) Having received no objections by the deadline, the court issued an order on May 15, 2017, adopting the Report and Recommendation. (May 15, 2017 Order, ECF No. 23.) On May 9, 2017, [3] although not received by the court until May 16, 2017, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.