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.

Robinson v. McFadden

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

October 13, 2017

Corey Jawan Robinson, Petitioner,
v.
Joseph McFadden, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER AND OPINION

         This matter is before the court on Petitioner Corey Jawan Robinson's (“Petitioner”) Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Alter and/or Amend the District [Court's] [August 7, 2017] Final Order (ECF No. 95) accepting the Magistrate Judge's March 30, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“Second Report”) (ECF No. 84). (ECF Nos. 105, 106.) For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS Petitioner's Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Alter and/or Amend the court's Order, but still ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Second Report GRANTING Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 78) as to Ground Ten and further DENYING Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (ECF No. 1) as to the same. Additionally, the court finds that Petitioner's Motion to Stay Pending Certificate of Probable Cause and Appealability (ECF No. 107) is MOOT.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In 2008, a Grand Jury indicted Petitioner for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and assault while resisting arrest in Georgetown County, South Carolina (“the State”). (ECF No. 46-3 at 78, 84, 90.) On March 16, 2009, Petitioner's trial for these charges commenced, and Attorney C. Reuben Goude represented him. (ECF No. 46-1 at 3.) Petitioner was tried before the Honorable Steven H. John. (Id.) After Judge John ruled on several motions raised at the beginning of trial, Petitioner made a Motion to Relieve his counsel and proceed pro se. (Id. at 41-50.) After questioning Petitioner about his Motion and informing him of his trial rights, Judge John granted Petitioner's Motion to represent himself, relieving Attorney Goude as Petitioner's counsel. (Id. at 49-50.)

         At the conclusion of Petitioner's trial, a jury found Petitioner guilty of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and assault of an officer while resisting arrest. (Id. at 194-95.)[1] Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent sentences of fifteen years imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, ten years imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and ten years imprisonment for assault on a police officer while resisting arrest. (Id. at 201.)

         On March 20, 2009, Petitioner filed an appeal in the South Carolina Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 46-4 at 1.) Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter represented Petitioner on direct appeal, filing an Anders Brief[2] and a Petition to be Relieved as Counsel on December 29, 2009. (ECF No. 46-1 at 205-213.) On January 12, 2010[3], Petitioner filed a Pro Se Appellant Brief. (ECF Nos. 46-2 at 2-22, 46-13.)[4] The South Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's case on April 28, 2011. (ECF 46-2 at 23.) On May 5, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Rehearing (ECF No. 46-5) and it was denied on June 1, 2011. (ECF No. 46-6.)

         On December 12, 2014, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) On March 30, 2015, Joseph McFadden (“Respondent”) filed a Return and Motion for Summary Judgment, but the Return was missing a portion of the Appendix. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.) Respondent filed a corrected Return and Motion for Summary Judgment on November 25, 2015. (ECF Nos. 46, 47.) On March 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“First Report”) recommending that the court grant Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Petitioner's Petition. (ECF No. 58.) On March 14, 2016, Petitioner filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report. (ECF No. 64.)

         On September 30, 2016, the court accepted in part and rejected in part the First Report. (ECF No. 71.) The court denied Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition as to Grounds One through Nine and Eleven through Thirteen. (Id. at 3.) The court disagreed with the First Report as to the procedural bar on Ground Ten based on its discovery that Petitioner presented Ground Ten in his pro se Brief on direct appeal, thus satisfying the exhaustion requirement for his claim. (Id. at 8.) The court instructed Respondent to refile his summary judgment motion as to Ground Ten so that the “court may have a more fully developed argument on the issue” and remanded Petitioner's Petition to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration. (Id. at 9.) The court did not grant a Certificate of Appealability. (Id. at 10.)

         In response to the court's Order (ECF No. 71), Respondent filed an Amended Answer and Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on December 2, 2016. (ECF Nos. 77, 78.) Petitioner filed an Amended Response on December 12, 2016. (ECF No. 82.) The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation as to Ground Ten on March 30, 2017. (ECF No. 84.) Ground Ten of Petitioner's Petition states that the “trial judge erred in not granting his Motion for Directed Verdict [and that the State failed] to prove that he had actual or constructive possession [of the crack and marijuana found at the scene].” (ECF No. 1 at 20.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Ground Ten (ECF No. 78) be granted. On April 4, 2017, Petitioner filed an Objection to the Second Report (ECF No. 86), and on April 11, 2017, he filed a Supplement to his Objection. (ECF No. 89.) Respondent responded to Petitioner's Objections (ECF No. 90) and Petitioner replied (ECF No. 91). On August 7, 2017, the court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Second Report granting Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying Petitioner's Petition. (ECF No. 95.) Petitioner appealed this Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and it was remanded to this court for a Certificate of Appealability as to Ground Ten, which was subsequently denied. (ECF Nos. 98, 103, 108.)

         On August 14, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion to Show Cause as to the timeliness of his Objections to the Second Report, and also filed a Motion to Alter and/or Amend the court's Order (ECF No. 95). (ECF Nos. 105, 106.) Petitioner additionally filed a Motion to Stay Pending Certificate of Probable Cause and Appealability. (ECF No. 107.)

         II. JURISDICTION

         The court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Petitioner brings his Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, which details remedies in federal courts for those persons in state custody.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         a. Motion To Alter and/or Amend a Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may “alter or amend the judgment if the movant shows either (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence that was not available at trial, or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice.” Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). It is the moving party's burden to establish one of these three grounds in order to obtain relief under this rule. Loren Data Corp. v. GXS, Inc., 501 Fed. App'x 275, 285 (4th Cir. 2012). The decision ...


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.