Kamenicky v. Davis, No. 4:2017cv03758 - Document 12 (S.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support. COA is denied. (Signed by Judge Vanessa D Gilmore) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kamenicky v. Davis Doc. 12 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS H OUSTON DIVISION November 30, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk JOHN A .KAM ENICKY, (TDCJ-CID #02020271) Petitioner, V S. CIVIL A CTIO N N O .11-17-3758 LORIE D AV IS, R espondent. M EM O M N DU M A N D O PIN IO N Petitioner,John Kamenicky,seeks habeas corpusrelief under 28 U.S.C.j 2254, challenging aconviction in the 232nd JudicialD istrictCourtofHanis County,Texas. Respondent tiledaM otionforSummal'yJudgment,(DocketEntl'yNo.9),and copiesofthestatecourtrecord. Kamenicky has filed his response.(DocketEntry No. The threshold issue is whether Kam enicky'sclaim s are procedurally defaulted. 1. Background A jury found Kamenicky guilty of the felony offense of murder. (Cause Number 147761301010). OnAugust21,2015,thecoul'tsentencedKamenickytolifeimprisonment.The FirstCourtofA ppealsofTexasaffirm ed Kam enicky'sconviction on D ecem ber1,2016.The Texas CourtofCrim inalA ppeals refused Kam enicky's petition for discretionary review on M arch 29, 2017. K am enicky tiled an application forstate habeas corpus reliefon July 17,2017,w hich the O :yM OhV D Gh2017h17-3758.b01.wpd Dockets.Justia.com TexasCourtofCriminalAppealsdeniedwithoutwrittenorder,on findingsofthetrialcourt,without a hearing on N ovem ber8,2017. Exparte Kam enicky Application N o. 87,472-01 atcover. On December 12,2017,this Courtreceived Kam enicky's federalpetition. Kam enicky contends that his conviction is void because he w as not evaluated for com petency before trial. (DocketEntryNo.1,PetitionforW ritofHabeasCorpus,p.6). II. The A pplicable LegalStandards ThisCourtreview sK am enicky'spetition forwritofhabeascorpusunderthe federalhabeas statutes,asamendedbytheAntitenorism andEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996(AEDPA).28 U.S.C.j2254;Woodsv.Cockrell,307F.3d353,356(5thCir.2002);Noblesv.Johnson,127F.3d 409,413(5thCir.1997),citingfindhv.Murphy,521U.S.320(1997). Sections2254(d)(1)and(2)ofAEDPA setoutthestandardsofreview forquestionsoffact, questionsoflaw,andmixedquestionsoffactandlaw thatresultinan adjudicationonthemerits. Anadjudicationonthemeritsikisaterm ofartthatreferstowhetheracourt'sdispositionofthecase issubstantive,asopposedtoprocedural.''Millerv.Johnson,200F.3d274,281(5thCir.2000).A state-courtdeterm ination ofquestionsof1aw and m ixed questionsoflaw and factisreview ed under 28 U.S.C. j 2254(d)(1) and receives deference unless it (dwas contrary to,or involved an unreasonable application ofclearly established Federallaw ,asdeterm ined by the Suprem eC ourtof theUnitedStates.''Hillv.Johnson,210F.3d48l,485(5th Cir.2000). A state-courtdecisionis dicontraryto''SupremeCourtprecedentif:(1)thestatecourt'sconclusionisSioppositetothatreached by gthe Supreme Court)on a question oflaw''or(2)the ksstate courtconfrontsfactsthatare m aterially indistinguishable from a relevantSuprem e Coul' tprecedent''and arrives atan opposite result. Williamsv.Taylor,l20 S.Ct.1495(2000). A statecourtunreasonably appliesSupreme O :hM OhVD Gy2017h17-3758.b01.w pd Coul' tprecedentifitunreasonably appliesthe correctlegalrule to thefactsofa particularcase, or itCdunreasonablyextendsalegalprinciplefrom gsupremeCoul't)precedenttoanew contextwhere itshould notapply orunreasonably refusesto extend thatprinciple to a new contextw hereitshould apply.''1d.at1495.Questionsoffactfoundbythestatecourtareiûpresumedtobecorrect...and greceive)deference...unlessitçwasbasedonanunreasonabledetermination ofthefactsinlight oftheevidencepresentedintheStatecourtproceeding.'''Hill,210F.3dat485(quoting28U.S.C. j2254(d)(2)). A statecourt'sfactualfindingsare entitled to deference on federalhabeascorpusreview and arepresumedcorrectundersection2254(e)(1)unlessthepetitionerrebutsthosefindingswith(sclear andconvincingevidence.''Garciav.Quarterman,454F.3d44l,444(5thCir.2006)(citingfflfg/cc.ç v.Dretke,412F.3d 582,589(5thCir.2005)and28U.S.C.j2254(e)(1)).Thisdeferenceextends notonly to express tindingsof fact,butto the im plicitfindings ofthe state courtasw ell. Garcia, 454F.3dat444-45(citingSummersv.Dretke,431F.3d861,876(5thCir.2005);Youngv.Dretke, 356F.3d616,629(5th Cir.2004)). W hile,dkgalsageneralprinciple,Rule56oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,relatingto summaryjudgment,applieswith equalforcein the contextofhabeas corpus cases,''Clark v. Johnson,202F.3d760,764(5thCir.),cert.denieJ 531U.S.831(2000),theruleappliesonlytothe extentthatitdoesnotcontlictwiththehabeasrules. Section 2254(e)(1)- which mandatesthat findingsoffactm ade by a state courtare Sûpresum ed to be correct''- overridesthe ordinaryrulethat, inasummaryjudgmentproceeding,alldisputedfactsmustbeconstruedinthelightmostfavorable tothenonmovingparty.Unlessthepetitionercankûrebutg1thepresumptionofcorrectnessbyclear O :hM O hV D Gh20l7hl7-3758.b01.N d and convincingevidence''astothestatecourt'sfindingsoffact,thosefindingsmustbeacceptedas correct.Smithv.Cockrell,311F.3d661,668(5thCir.2002). Kamenickyisproceedingpro se.A pro sehabeaspetitionisconstrued liberallyand notheld to the sam e stringentand rigorousstandardsaspleadingstiled by law yers.See M artin v.M axey,98 F.3d844,847n.4(5thCir.1996);Guidrozv.Lynaugh,852F.2d832,834(5thCir.1988);Woodall v.Foti,648F.2d268,271(5thCir.UnitA June1981).ThisCourtbroadlyinterpretsKamenicky's stateandfederalhabeaspetitions.Bledsuev.Johnson,188F.3d250,255(5thCir.1999). 111. The C laim Based on a D enialofa C om petency H earing The scope offederalhabeasreview islimited by the intertwined doctrinesofprocedural defaultandexhaustion.Bledsuev.Johnson,188F.3d250,254(5thCir.1999).Ordinarily,astate prisonerseekingfederalhabeasreliefmusttirstCûexhausgtltheremediesavailableinthecourtsof theState,''28U.S.C.j2254(b)(1)(A),therebyaffordingthosecourtsdûthefirstopportunitytoaddress andcorrectallegedviolationsofgthejprisoner'sfederalrights.''Colemanv.Thompson,501U.S. 722,731(1991).Theadequateandindependentstategrounddoctrinefurthersthatobjective,for w ithoutit,dshabeaspetitionersw ouldbeableto avoid theexhaustionrequirem entbydefaulting their federalclaimsinstatecourt.''Walkerv.Martin,131S.Ct.1l20(2011)(quotingColeman,501U.S. at732).Exhaustion requiresthattheprisonerûihavefairlypresentedthesubstanceofhisclaim to thestatecourts.''Noblesv.Johnson,127F.3d409,420 (5thCir.1997).Becausetheexhaustion doctrine is designed to give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutionalclaim sbeforethose claim sarepresented tothefederalcourts,stateprisonersm ustgive the state courtsone fullopportunity to resolve any constitutionalissues by invoking one com plete round ofthe state'sestablished appellate review process.O ' Sullivan v.Boerckel,526 U .S.838,846 0 :hR A0W D 6y2017h17-3758.b01.w pd (1999). isDetermining whether a petitioner exhausted his claim in state courtis a case-and fad-speeificinquiry.''Moorev.Quarterman,533F.3d 338,341(5th Cir.2008)(enbanc). lnTexas,acriminaldefendantmaychallengeaeonvietionbytakingthefollowingpaths:(1) the petitionerm ay file a directappealfollow ed,ifnecessary,by a petition fordiscretionary review intheTexasCourtofCriminalAppeals;and/or(2)hemaytileapetitionforwritofhabeascorpus under Article 11.07 ofthe Texas Code ofCrim inalProcedure in the convicting court,which is transmittedtotheTexasCourtofCriminalAppealsoncethetrialcoul'tdetennineswhetherfindings arenecessary.SeeTex.CodeCrim.Proc.art.11.07,j3(c);seealsoBusbyv.Dretke,359F.3d708, 723 (5th Cir.2004)(ikl-labeaspetitionersmustexhauststateremediesby pursuing theirclaims throughonecompletecycleofeitherstatedirectappealorpost-convictioncollateralproceedings.'). A federalcourtgenerallycannotreview them eritsofastateprisoner'shabeaspetitionifthe claim s in the petition are procedurally defaulted. See,e.g.,M agwood v.Patterson,561 U .S.320, 340(2010)(tûlfapetitionerdoesnotsatisfytheproceduralrequirementsforbringinganerrortothe state court'sattention -w hetherin trial,appellate,orhabeasproceedings,asstate law m ay require - proceduraldefaultwillbarfederalreview.'').A habeasclaim canbeprocedurallydefaultedineither oftwo ways.Coleman v.Dretke,395F.3d 216,220(5th Cir.2004),cert.denied,546U.S.938 (2005).SeegenerallyO ' Sullivanv.Boerckel,526U.S.838,850-56(1999)(Stevens,J.,dissenting) (explainingthedifferencesbetweenthetwovarietiesofproceduraldefault);Bledsuev.Johnson,188 F.3d 250,254(5thCir.1999). First,ûûgplroceduraldefault...occurswhen a prisonerfailsto exhaustavailable state rem edies and the courtto which petitionerw ould be required to presenthisclaim s in orderto m eet theexhaustionrequirementwouldnow findtheclaim sprocedurallybarred.''Williamsv.Thaler,602 O :yR AOhV D GQ 017hl7-3758.b0lvw pd F.3d29l,305(5thCir.201Q).W lwnstateremtdiesarerenderedunavailablebypetitioner'sown proeeduraldefault,orwhen'sitisobviousthattheunexhausted claim wouldbeprocedurallybarred in statecourt,we willforego theneedlessSjudicialping-pong'and hold theclaim procedurally barredfrom habeasreview.''Sonesv.Hargett,61F.3d410,416 (5thCir.1995)(quotingSteelv. l'otfng,11F.3d1518,1524(10thCir.1993))seealsoColemanv.Thompson,50lU.S.722,736n.1 (1991))(k$(l1fthepetitionerfailedtoexhauststateremediesandthecourttowhichpetitionerwould berequired to presenthisclaim sin orderto m eetthe exhaustion requirementwouldnow find the claimsprocedurallybarred,...gthen)thereisaproceduraldefaultforpurposesoffederalhabeas. Second,ifthe prisonerhaspresented the claim to the highestavailable state courtbutthat courthasdismissed theclaim ona state-law proceduralground insteadofdecidingitonthemerits, the claim has been decided on an independentand adequate state-law ground.See,e.g.,H arris v. Reed,489U.S.255,262 (1989).ûtlfastate coul' tclearly and expressly basesitsdismissalofa prisoner's claim on a state proceduralrule,and thatproceduralrule provides an independentand adequate ground fordism issal,the prisonerhasprocedurally defaulted hisfederalhabeasclaim .'' Noblesv.Johnson,127F.3d409,420(5thCir.1997),cert.denie4 523U.S.1139(1998).Thestate proceduralrule m ustbe û$170th independentofthe m eritsofthe federalclaim and an adequate basis forthecourt'sdecision.''Finleyv.Johnson,243F.3d215,218(5thCir.2001).A stateprocedural rule is an adequate basis for the court's decision only if it is Ststrictly or regularly applied evenhandedly to thevastmajorityofsimilarclaims.''Amosv.Scott,61F.3d 333,339 (5th Cir.) (emphasisomitted),ccr/.denied,516U.S.1005 (1995). O :yM O hV DG h2017y17-3758.b01.wpd Kam enicky assertsthatthe trialeourtfailed to eondud a com peteney hearing priorto trial. (DocketEntryNo.1,FederalPetition,p.6).Respondentarguesthatthisclaim isprocedurallybarred because Kamenicky failed to exhaustavailable state courtremedies. (DocketEntry No.9, Respondent'sM otion forSummaryJudgment,p.7). The state courtrecord show s that Kamenicky presented five grounds challenging the sufficiencyoftheevidenceinhisstateapplicationforpost-convictionrelief.(DocketEntryNo.1017,pp.10-19). Kamenicky also challenged the sufficiency ofthe evidence in hispetition for discretionaryreview.(DocketEntryNo.l0-9,p.9). ln the instantfederalpetition,K am enicky com plainsthathe should have had a com petency exam ination before trial.H ow ever,K am enicky did notraise the issue ofcom petency in eitherhis stateapplication orpetition fordiscretionary review. Asnoted,ûûga)proceduraldefault...occurswhen aprisonerfailstoexhaustavailablestate rem ediesand the courtto which the petitioner would be required to presenthis claim s in orderto m eetthe exhaustion requirem entwouldnow findtheclaim sprocedllrallybalTed.''. hrt/àhfc:v.Johnson, 127F.3d409,420(5thCir.1997)(citationandinternalquotationmarksomitted).Kamenickyfailed to exhauststate courtrem edies w ith regard to hiscom petency hearing claim raised in his federal habeas petition. Should this Court require K am enicky to return to state court to satisfy the exhaustion requirem entw ith the TexasCourtofCrim inalAppeals,thatcourtw ould find the claim s procedurally barredundertheabuseofthewritdoctrinefound inArticle 11.07,j4 oftheTexas Code ofCrim inalProcedure. Because Texasw ould likely baranotherhabeascorpusapplication by K am enicky,he has com m itted a proceduraldefaultthat is sufficientto barfederalhabeas corpus review.See,e.g.,Bagwellv.Dretke,372F.3d 748,755-56 (5th Cir.2004)(holdingapetitioner O :hM O hV DG h2017h17-3758.b01.N d procedurally defaulted by failing to Csfairly present''aclaim to the state courtsin his state habeas corpusapplication);Smith v.Cockrell,311F.3d 661,684 (5th Cir.2002)(holdingunexhausted claimswereprocedurallybarred);Jonesv.Johnson,171F.3d270,276-77 (5thCir.1999)(same). To overcom etheproceduralbaron nonexhaustion,K am enicky m usttddem onstrate cause for thedefaultandactualprejudiceasaresultoftheallegedviolationoffederallaw,ordemonstratethat failureto considerthe claimswillresultin a fundamentalmiscarriage ofjustice.''Coleman v. Thompson, 501 Quarterman,522 F.3d 517,523-24 (5th Cir.2008).Kamenicky offersno argumentsthatwould excuse the procedural default. K am enicky does not dispute that this claim is unexhausted. Kam enicky'sclaim relatingtothefailureto conductacom petencyexam ination isdism issedbecause itisprocedurally-barred. IV . Conclusion Respondent's M otion for Summary Judgment,(DocketEntry No.9),is GRANTED. Kam enicky's petition for a w rit of habeas corpus is D EN IED . This case is D ISM ISSED . A ny rem aining pending m otionsare D EN IED asm oot. The show ing necessary for a Certificate of A ppealability is a substantialshowing of the denialofaconstitutionalright.Hernandezv.Johnson,213F.3d243,248(5thCir.zoooltcitingk so ck v.McDaniel,429 U.S.473,483 (2000)). An applicantmakesa substantialshowing when he demonstratesthathisapplication involvesissuesthataredebatableamongjuristsofreason,that anothercourtcould resolve the issuesdifferently,orthatthe issuesare suitable enough to deserve eneouragementtoproceedfurther.SeeClarkv.Johnson,202F.3d760,763(5thCir.2000). O :yM O yV DG h2017y17-3758.b01.wpd W henthedistrictcourtdeniesahabeaspetition on proceduralgroundswithoutreaching the prisoner'sunderlying constitutionalclaim ,a COA should issuewhen theprisonershows,atleast, thatjuristsofreasonwouldfinditdebatablewhetherthepetition statesavalidclaim ofthedenial ofaconstitutionalrightandthatjuristsofreasonwouldfinditdebatablewhetherthedistrictcourt wascorrectinitsproceduralruling.Ruddv.Johnson,256F.3d317,319(5thCir.zoolltcitingSlack, 529U.S.at484).Kamenickyhasnotmadethenecessaryshowing.Accordingly,acertificateof appealability isD EN IED . SIGNEDatHoustonTexas,on , . 7 ,2018. V AN ESSA D .GILM O RE UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE O :hM OyV D Gh2017y17-3758.b01.w pd
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
