Green v. Willams, No. 1:2012cv04025 - Document 10 (N.D. Ga. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION overruling petitioner's objections 8 and adopting the 6 Final Report and Recommendation denying and dismissing the § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 7/26/14. (ddm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION MONTRELL GREEN, GDC ID # 1200165, Petitioner, : : : : : : : : v. STANLEY WILLIAMS, Respondent. PRISONER HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. § 2254 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-cv-4025-JEC ORDER & OPINION This case is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge s Final Report and Recommendation ( R&R ) [6] and petitioner s objections [8]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that petitioner s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [1] be denied, this action be dismissed, and a certificate of appealability be denied. (R&R [6] at 14.) The district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify [the R&R], U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). in whole or in part . . . . 28 Portions of the R&R to which no objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. App x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)(per curiam). Petitioner objects to the R&R as to all four grounds of his petition. In ground one, petitioner claims that the trial court should have suppressed his statement to police as involuntary. [6] at 8.) AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2) (R&R The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the statement was voluntary, and the Magistrate Judge determined that the court s conclusion is (1) neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law and (2) not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. (Id. at 8-9.) The Magistrate Judge explained that the court considered petitioner s characteristics, including his age and actions, and the details of the interrogation, including the administration of Miranda1 rights, the offers . . . to consult with a parent, and the decision to charge at the end of the interview. (Id. at 9.) Petitioner objects that (1) he has a low level of education, (2) his mother would have known what was best, and (3) he was afraid and did not know that he could decline to speak to police as a witness. (Pet r s Obj. [8] at 2.) Those objections do not alter the totality of circumstances that the Georgia Supreme Court considered, and they do not satisfy the standard for federal habeas corpus relief. Petitioner also asks this Court to review five cases,2 but those cases do not assist petitioner because they are not United States Supreme Court cases. 1 (See R&R [6] at 6-7.) The Magistrate Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 Petitioner cites West v. United States, 399 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1968); Crawford v. State, 240 Ga. 321 (1977); Williams v. State, 238 Ga. 298 (1977); and Bussey v. State, 144 Ga. App. 875 (1978). (Pet r s Obj. [8] at 2.) Petitioner also mentions Franklin v. State but does not give a citation. (Id.) 2 AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2) Judge correctly determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on ground one. Petitioner s objections as to grounds two, three, and four merely repeat arguments in his petition. (See Pet r s Obj. [8] at 23; R&R [6] at 9-13.) Furthermore, petitioner fails to address the Magistrate Judge s determination that a portion of ground three and all of ground four are procedurally defaulted. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge (R&R [6] at 4-6.) properly considered petitioner s arguments and correctly determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on grounds two, three, and four. It is hereby Ordered that the Court OVERRULES petitioner s objections [8] and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge s R&R [6] DENYING the § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus [1], DISMISSING this action, and DENYING a certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall close this case. SO ORDERED, this 26th day of July, 2014. /s/ Julie E. Carnes JULIE E. CARNES CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)
]]>
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.
