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.

Floyd v. Frakes

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

August 7, 2017

WILLIAM C. FLOYD, JR., Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES, Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; and BRAD HANSEN, Warden Tecumseh State Correctional Institution; Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge

         This matter is before the court on preliminary review of Petitioner William C. Floyd, Jr.'s 58-page Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 127) brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The purpose of this review is to determine whether Petitioner's claims, when liberally construed, are potentially cognizable in federal court. Condensed and summarized for clarity, Petitioner's claims[1] are:

         Claim One:

Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel (1) failed to investigate Carrissa Flanagan, Maurice Thomas, and men hired to retaliate against Maurice Davis and his family as possible suspects and failed to introduce that evidence at trial (Filing No. 127 at CM/ECF pp. 17, 18-19, 33, 34-35); (2) failed to interview Becky Breyman, Felicia Williams, and Coney Stephens (Id. at CM/ECF p. 18); (3) failed to subpoena Traeshawn Davis to testify at trial, or alternatively, introduce his prior trial testimony (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 20, 33); (4) failed to properly investigate the crime scene and the Omaha Police Department investigation in order to effectively impeach Shantelle Vickers' testimony at trial (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 20-21, 36); (5) failed to interview Steven Lindsay and subpoena him to testify at trial (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 22, 33); (6) failed to investigate Pierce Armstead and subpoena him to testify at trial (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 22-23); (7) failed to investigate Petitioner's “unusual gait” and eyesight (Id. at CM/ECF p. 24); (8) failed to order any ballistic examination or evaluation of the trajectory and residue soot of the bullet removed from the windowsill (Id. at CM/ECF p. 26); (9) failed to subpoena Shantelle Vickers' telephone records from October 7 and 8, 2003 (Id.); (10) failed to interview Howard Banister (Id. at CM/ECF p. 27); (11) failed to adequately investigate the prior bad act that occurred on April 24, 2003 (Id.); (12) failed to present truthful evidence at the pretrial hearing and at trial about the April 24, 2003, prior bad act (Id. at CM/ECF p. 28); (13) failed to challenge in a motion to suppress the validity of Shantelle Vickers' affidavit as probable cause for the arrest warrant (Id.); (14) failed to conduct proper voir dire when counsel failed to remove certain jurors for cause or with peremptory strikes and used peremptory strikes in a gender-biased manner (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 29-31); (15) failed to move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction after a juror discussed his opinion of Petitioner's guilt in front of the other jurors during voir dire (Id. at CM/ECF p. 30); (16) failed to object when the prosecutor used peremptory strikes in a gender-biased manner (Id. at CM/ECF p. 31); (17) prohibited Petitioner from testifying (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 27, 32); (18) failed to subpoena Shantelle Vickers' medical records to impeach her testimony at trial about Petitioner's acts of domestic violence against her (Id. at CM/ECF p. 35); (19) failed to investigate Shantelle Vickers' abuse of Petitioner (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 35-36); (20) failed to subpoena Officer Allen Wagner to testify at trial (Id. at CM/ECF p. 36); (21) failed to effectively cross-examine Ruth Buie about Petitioner's clothing, the exact times he was with her that day, his “unusual gait, ” and his glasses (Id. at CM/ECF p. 37); (22) failed to effectively cross-examine Shawn Smith about Petitioner's “unusual gait” and glasses (Id.); (23) failed to cross-examine Petitioner's mother about his “unusual gait” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 38); (24) failed to cross-examine Shantelle Vickers and Andre Jack about whether the suspect moved in a unique way or wore glasses (Id.); (25) failed to investigate the location of the missing video and audiotape of Shantelle Vickers' first statement to law enforcement (Id. at CM/ECF p. 39); (26) failed to assert a Brady violation with regard to the missing video and audiotape (Id.); (27) failed to adduce at trial the discrepancies between the truth and Shantelle Vickers' first statement to law enforcement (Id.); (28) failed to investigate the location of the photo array that law enforcement displayed to Andre Jack (Id. at CM/ECF p. 40); (29) failed to assert a Brady violation with regard to the photo array (Id.); (30) failed to object to Exhibits 145 and 146 and testimony about them (Id. at CM/ECF p. 44); (31) failed to impeach Detective Christopher Perna's testimony at trial with evidence that Petitioner escaped from him during the April 24, 2003, prior bad act (Id. at CM/ECF p. 45); (32) failed to exclude or remedy Shantelle Vickers' testimony that she and Petitioner had hundreds of fights (Id.); (33) failed to object to erroneous jury instructions (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 45-46); (34) failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and the direct examination of Shantelle Vickers (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 46-48); and (35) made an improper opening statement “basically telling the jury that all the evidence against [Petitioner] was true.” (Id.)

         Claim Two:

Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to raise on direct appeal (1) prosecutorial misconduct because the State withheld from Petitioner the police report about the video and audiotape of Shantelle Vickers' first statement to law enforcement and the photo array that law enforcement displayed to Andre Jack; (2) sufficiency of the evidence for Petitioner's convictions of first degree murder and manslaughter of an unborn child[2]; (3) prosecutorial misconduct because the State introduced the 911 tape into evidence at trial; (4) prosecutorial misconduct because the State presented false and misleading evidence to the jury; (5) judicial misconduct because the trial court overruled trial counsel's motion to remove a juror for cause who formed a preconceived opinion about Petitioner's guilt; (6) judicial misconduct because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury; (7) insufficient notice of the nature and cause of the accusation during Petitioner's arraignment on the second amended information; (8)the unconstitutionality of Petitioner's conviction and sentence for Count III, felon in possession of a firearm; (9) judicial misconduct for imposing a sentence on Count III when the State failed to offer documentary evidence that the underlying offense was a felony; (10) prosecutorial misconduct because law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest Petitioner; and (11) judicial misconduct because the trial court judge refused to recuse himself “and denied counsel during hearing to litigate.” (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 49-50.)

         Claim Three:

Petitioner was denied the constitutional right to a fair trial because (1) the prosecutor and trial counsel used peremptory strikes in a gender-biased manner (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 31-32); (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct when it withheld from Petitioner the video and audiotape of Shantelle Vickers' first statement to law enforcement and the photo array that law enforcement displayed to Andre Jack in violation of Brady (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 39-40); (3) Detective Christopher Perna committed misconduct when he coached Shantelle Vickers during her second statement to law enforcement and altered the crime scene diagram to match Vickers' “new” version of events (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 23, 25, 40-44); (4) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct when it permitted evidence of the altered crime scene at trial (Id. at CM/ECF p. 44); (5) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 45-46); and (6) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and direct examination of Shantelle Vickers. (Id. at CM/ECF 46-48.)

         Claim Four:

Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial and appellate counsel failed to maintain sufficient client contact with Petitioner to enable Petitioner “to obtain or pursue significant avenues which would have led to exculpatory information” and “to allow for [Petitioner] to make decisions which would affect his opportunity to preserve claims.” (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 51-54.)

         Claim Five:

The state district court and the Nebraska Supreme Court denied Petitioner the right to a full and fair opportunity to investigate and present his claims in his postconviction proceedings. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 32, 39-40, 54-56.)

         Claim Six:

Each of Petitioner's aforementioned claims and their subparts constitute a violation of his rights to Due Process, Equal Protection, and fair process under the ...

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.