Fulton v. Superintendent

Background

Jeremy Fulton filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner to challenge a state conviction or sentence. Fulton sought to vacate his 2011 conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to one count of first-degree rape. Under the plea agreement, he received a sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment followed by 20 years of post-release supervision. The prosecution dismissed two other indictments.

Fulton initially told the state trial court that he wanted to withdraw his plea because his attorney had coerced him. After a new attorney was appointed, that attorney filed a motion to withdraw the plea. The state court denied the motion. The state appellate courts later denied Fulton’s efforts to withdraw his plea and denied permission to appeal.

Fulton’s federal petition raised five general grounds: his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary; his waiver of appeal was not knowing or voluntary; his trial lawyer was ineffective; the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; and the trial court abused its discretion. Fulton also asked for discovery and an evidentiary hearing.

Magistrate judge’s recommendation and review standard

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended denying the petition and the requests for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Fulton objected. Judge George B. Daniels explained that because the objections were conclusory, general, or repeated arguments already made to the magistrate judge, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court then adopted the recommendation in full.

Under the federal habeas statute, relief is available only when the state-court decision violated clearly established Supreme Court law or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts. A state prisoner generally must also present federal claims to the state courts before seeking federal review. A claim rejected on an independent and adequate state-law ground generally cannot be reviewed in federal habeas proceedings.

Rulings on Fulton’s claims

The court agreed that Fulton’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary, and free from coercion. The plea hearing record showed that the state trial judge examined whether Fulton understood and voluntarily entered the plea. The court also concluded that Fulton had not shown that the state courts unreasonably applied the governing Supreme Court standards.

The court agreed that Fulton’s challenge to his appeal waiver had not been properly exhausted in state court and was procedurally barred from federal habeas review. Alternatively, the court stated that the waiver was valid because the state judge separately explained its consequences and the record showed that Fulton signed it knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

The court also upheld the recommendation rejecting Fulton’s ineffective-assistance claims. Fulton alleged that counsel failed to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence, lost a motion seeking reassignment of counsel, coerced him into pleading guilty, failed to protect his speedy-trial right, and acted unprofessionally during a hearing concerning the legality of searches and statements. The court concluded that these allegations did not satisfy the demanding standard for proving ineffective assistance and that the state-court decisions were not contrary to, or unreasonable applications of, that standard.

Fulton’s prosecutorial-misconduct claims concerned his allegedly warrantless arrest, the prosecution’s failure to disclose favorable evidence, and the failure to provide notice before victim statements were introduced at sentencing. The court agreed that these claims were unexhausted, procedurally barred, or both. It added that, even if it considered the merits, it would find the claims unpersuasive.

Finally, the court agreed that Fulton’s abuse-of-discretion claim concerned alleged violations of state procedural law and therefore was not a cognizable federal habeas claim.

Other requests and disposition

The court agreed that Fulton had not shown good cause for discovery or an evidentiary hearing. It therefore denied the habeas petition, denied the motion for discovery, and denied the request for an evidentiary hearing. The court also overruled Fulton’s objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in full, and directed the clerk to close the case.