Brooks v. Cain

Full title: MITCHELL BROOKS v. N. BURL CAIN

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Apr 18, 2005

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-2377 SECTION "J" (5) (E.D. La. Apr. 18, 2005)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-2377 SECTION "J" (5).

April 18, 2005

ORDER AND REASONS

CARL BARBIER, District Judge

On March 15, 2005 the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommended dismissal of Petitioner's federal habeas corpus application with prejudice.¹ On April 1, 2005 an objection to the Report and Recommendation was filed by Petitioner.² After considering the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner's objection and applicable law, the Court finds that the Petitioner's objection should be overruled, the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, and this matter should be dismissed with prejudice.

1 Rec. Doc. 11.

2 Rec. Doc. 12.

BACKGROUND

On October 22, 1998, Mitchell Brooks ("Petitioner") was found guilty of attempted simple robbery in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.³ On August 12, 1999, Petitioner was adjudicated a fourth felony offender under LSA-R.S. 15:529.1 and was sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.⁴ Petitioner's appeal was denied by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in 2001,⁵ and writs were denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court on March 8, 2002.⁶ Petitioner's conviction became final on June 8, 2002, when the ninety-day period to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court expired.

3 Report and Recommendation, p. 1 (Rec. Doc. 11).

4 Report and Recommendation, pp. 1-2 (Rec. Doc. 11).

5 State v. Brooks, 786 So. 2d 983 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2001).

6 State ex rel. Brooks v. State, 810 So. 2d 1157 (La. 2002); State v. Brooks, 810 So. 2d 1150 (La. 2002).

After exhausting his state court remedies for post-conviction relief, Petitioner timely filed his habeas corpus petition.⁷ In his petition, Petitioner alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during the multiple offender hearing held on August 12, 1999. Specifically, Petitioner alleges counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) object to the authenticity and admissibility of the documentary evidence of Petitioner's three prior felony convictions; (2) object to the hearsay testimony of Officer Glen Burmaster, and (3) conduct a proper pre-hearing investigation.⁸

7 Rec. Doc. 1.

8 Petitioner, pp. 13-24 (Rec. Doc. 1).

Addressing each of Petitioner's arguments, the Magistrate concluded that Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims do not warrant federal habeas relief and this matter should be dismissed. In his objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, Petitioner asserts that the state's failure to follow its own sentencing procedures is reviewable through federal habeas proceedings and a state's failure to follow such proceedings violates the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.⁹ Petitioner contends that the Magistrate's determination that the federal court is without authority to review a state's failure to follow its own sentencing procedures violates the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. Further, Petitioner asserts that extending his incarceration beyond the three and one-half year period which is permissible pursuant to LSA-R.S. 14:27 and 14:65, implicates 14th Amendment concerns and, therefore, is reviewable by a federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding.¹⁰

9 Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, p. 1 (Rec. Doc. 12).

10 Objection to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, p. 2 (Rec. Doc. 12).

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The sole issue raised by Petitioner in his objection is whether Louisiana's habitual offender statute implicates 14th Amendment concerns and permits federal review. Petitioner asserts that it is not the finding of guilt which deprives a defendant of life or liberty, but the underlying sentence. Essentially, Defendant is arguing that extending his sentence beyond the period of time allowable under the crime for which he was most recently convicted, violates the United States Constitution.

Examining Louisiana's multiple bill proceedings, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that such proceedings do not charge a crime, but are merely a part of the sentencing for the last of the multiple offenses.¹¹ Quoting the Louisiana Supreme Court, the court stated:

11 Buckley v. Butler, 825 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1987).

The enhancement of the penalty for habitual offenders convicted of a new felony only addresses itself to the sentencing powers of the trial judge after conviction and has no functional relationship to the innocence or guilt of the instant crime. In other words, it is clear that the sentence imposed in such cases is for the new crime only; it is simply more severe if the defendant is a habitual offender.¹²

12 Id. at 902 (citations omitted).

The Fifth Circuit explained that "at sentencing the accused does not have the full panoply of due process and other constitutional protections which attend the determination of guilt or innocence" because sentence enhancement statutes "have no relation to the circumstances of the wrongdoing constituting the most recent offense, but rather to something which is wholly unrelated thereto."¹³

13 Id. at 903 (citations omitted).

Further, "[f]or crimes concededly classified and classifiable as felonies, that is, as punishable by significant terms of imprisonment in a state penitentiary, the length of the sentence actually imposed is purely a matter of legislative perogative."¹⁴ Moreover, a federal habeas court will not upset a state sentence within statutory limits unless the sentence is so disproportionate to the offense as to be completely arbitrary and shocking.¹⁵ Petitioner has made no such showing, therefore, this Court finds that Petitioner's sentence does not run afoul of the Constitution and his claim must be dismissed.

14 Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 962, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2684, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (quoting Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 274, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1139, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980)).

15 Bonner v. Henderson, 517 F.2d 135, 136 (5th Cir. 1975); see also Smallwood v. Johnson, 73 F.3d 1343, 1347 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 883, 117 S.Ct. 212, 136 L.Ed.2d 146 (1996) (emphasizing that a federal court will not review a state sentence without a threshold showing that the sentence is "grossly disproportionate to the offense.")

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 12) should be and hereby is OVERRULED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court hereby finds that the Report and Recommendation should be and hereby is ADOPTED and this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.