Opinion
No. CV08-4002314
June 29, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
THE COURT: First, I just want to indicate for the record that I have had an opportunity and time to review these exhibits. And I know that Mr. Eisenman in his argument in closing did indicate some specific page numbers and sections of that; and I have, in fact, read those sections that he has referred to, and I may refer to some others, as well.
Now, I think probably we should start with this — although the starting point, as pointed out by the state, is really the petition of Mr. DeSantis and his actions.
Since, as you know, Mr. Alexander, your burden, having been presented before the Court now as a convicted felon, is a very high burden. You have to show that Mr. DeSantis, first, was ineffective in how he represented you in the last habeas matter; and we will not even get to whether or not there was any ineffectiveness of Mr. Skyers unless you can get past that hurdle.
But I do want to comment first on this issue of conflict. I know that there was an exhibit which was referred to by petitioner's counsel — that is Exhibit 5 — that is supposed to represent the issue that you did — you, Mr. Alexander, did, in fact, inform the Court before the trial started in August of 2003 that you had a "conflict" with your attorney.
Now, it appears, whether — and this is an original. It's a notarized, original letter — whether — and you did testify. And whether those copies did, in fact, reach the Court is irrelevant. What you're stating here in this letter and what you're claiming through your counsel is that you had a conflict with your attorney.
It doesn't sound to me like it was a conflict in the sense that you need to establish — if you were going to establish in the first habeas — that there was a conflict.
You just didn't like what he was telling you. You didn't like his advice. You wanted to do something different. That does not mean — in the legal sense — that you had a conflict with your attorney. But you didn't like what he was doing.
Apparently, by the time you got to trial, you felt a little more comfortable, perhaps because of what the Court said to you, too, that it's not a good idea for you to represent yourself in this case. You've got a lot to lose. The charges against you here carry very high penalties. So you certainly took his advice at that point.
Now, suddenly, you're claiming another conflict arose at the point when you didn't like what was happening at the sentencing and you realized you may not get the number of years you really wanted. So now another conflict arises.
And from what I heard from the testimony of Mr. Skyers and what he did raise to the Court was the fact that you did have these discussions, and he wanted to make it clear to the Court that he appropriately advised you.
You were asked, in fact, during the canvass, very clearly — I think not once, but twice — by Judge Ford whether or not — and I'm referring to — let's see. This is Exhibit 1.
This is during the canvass, when he asked you whether your relationship with your attorney, Mr. Skyers, had been satisfactory. And you answered, yes.
And he asked if you had had an opportunity to discuss this matter. The exact language is, And he has had an opportunity to discuss this matter with you. Is that correct? And you answered, yes.
Now, having said that, it does not appear that on the date of sentencing — which was April 25, 2003, when the judge did, in fact, go over very carefully what each of these counts in this particular case would carry for a possible sentence and the fact that you had pled guilty in the other case and how those two cases were going to ultimately determine not only what he sentenced you in this matter but also how they would run in terms of the other matter, whether they would be consecutive or concurrent. He explained that extremely carefully.
Now, having heard all of this, having read all of this, and having had you hear all of this in person while you were there, it defies belief that anyone could assume that you did not understand what an open plea agreement meant.
Mr. Skyers testified. Mr. DeSantis testified about that issue. I didn't hear anything — not one thing — other than your testimony when you claimed you didn't understand this, and I just don't find that credible. I don't think anybody could possibly find that credible.
It appears to me that what you did when you did it, this event itself, was something that was horrible judgment on your part. Obviously, you were very young. You've been incarcerated on this case for a number of years.
I'm hoping at this point that you have come to the conclusion that what you did was not only very wrong but very stupid, and the hope is — because Judge Ford did, in fact, take into consideration the fact that you did not go through this trial, the fact that you were young, and the fact that he had hoped if he gave you a sentence that was certainly less than the absolute maximum, which would be a life sentence, that you perhaps would come to the conclusion that what you did was horribly wrong and that you would have the opportunity if you were able to gain parole at an earlier point than the full sentence — that you would, in fact, become a member of society who understood what his obligations were to others in that society. I think that's very clear in his comments.
So whether or not Attorney Skyers filed a motion to dismiss, whether or not you really understood what a plea agreement — what an open plea agreement was, you — it was explained to you. The Court made it as clear as possible, bent over backwards, by reading all of these — particularly Exhibits 2 and 3, where — at the sentencing.
It defies anyone's opinion here that you somehow were duped into this and you didn't understand. Maybe in hindsight, you thought about some of these things.
But it appears to me that there is no way the Court can find, first, that Attorney DeSantis inappropriately or ineffectively represented you at the second habeas — at the first habeas trial, and secondly, that Attorney Skyers was in any way ineffective.
I think he did a very good job of representing you. His comments at the sentencing, too, were really very forceful and I think had some effect on Judge Ford in terms of how he sentenced you.
So at this point, I am going to deny the petition.
And I would ask the clerk to hand the appeal papers to Mr. Alexander so that he can fill those out today.
Thank you very much. And we will adjourn.
(The matter was concluded, and court was adjourned for the day.)