FRANCIS JARAD SCHULTZ, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT AND JIM SMITH, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a habeas petitioner must demonstrate actual and substantial disadvantage from counsel's ineffectiveness, which was not shown here.
Petitioner, convicted of grand theft, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to an untimely oral motion to disqualify the judge. The motion was…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Evidentiary Hearing In Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
[*901] PER CURIAM:
Francis Jarad Schultz, a Florida state prisoner convicted of grand theft, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he lacked effective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney made an untimely, procedurally defective, oral motion for disqualification of the state court judge, rather than a written motion accompanied by two supporting affidavits as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.230. We affirm.
To obtain habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice to himself. See Washington v. Strickland, 693 F. 2d 1243, 1258 (5th Cir., Unit B, 1982) (en banc). To establish prejudice, a habeas petitioner must show that ineffective counsel “resulted in actual and substantial disadvantage to the course of his defense.” Id. at 1262.
Here, Schultz has not shown that a timely, written motion for disqualification would have succeeded. Under Florida law, bare allegations of bias are insufficient for disqualification. State ex rel. Aguiar v. Chappell, 344 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); see Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857, 860 (Fla.1956) (defendant must tender some factual foundation for assertion of fear of judge’s being biased). The only evidence of bias preferred by Schultz is that prior to his trial he had filed two civil rights suits against the trial judge, who had given Schultz in a previous criminal case a sentence the petitioner considered excessive. The two suits and criminal sentence do not establish personal bias under federal law. See Wilkerson v. United States, 591 F. 2d 1046, 1047 (5th Cir.1979) (judge could conduct trial even though he had presided over a prior trial in which defendant was convicted of a felony); Hodgdon v. United States, 365 F. 2d 679, 686 (8th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1029, 87 S.Ct. 759, 17 L.Ed.2d 676 (1967) (judge could preside over trial even though defendants had filed unrelated litigation against the court).
Even if the judge would not have presided had counsel satisfied the procedural re-
quirements for a disqualification motion, Schultz has not alleged how the presence of this particular judge in anyway adversely affected his jury trial. There is not a single claim, let alone any evidence in the record, of any improper action by the judge during trial. See Hodgdon v. United States, 365 F. 2d at 686 (pointing to the judge’s fairness at trial in rejecting argument on appeal that he should not have presided over the trial). Under these circumstances, Schultz has not satisfied his burden to establish that the ineffectiveness of counsel, if any, actually and substantially disadvantaged his case. Washington v. Strickland, 693 F. 2d at 1258, 1262.
Schultz claims the district court should have granted him an evidentiary hearing and appointed counsel. An evidentiary hearing is not required where, as here, the district court can determine the merits of the ineffectiveness claim based on the existing record. Dickson v. Wainwright, 683 F. 2d 348, 351 (11th Cir.1982); see Baldwin v. Blackburn, 653 F. 2d 942, 947 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 2021, 72 L.Ed.2d 475 (1982). The burden is on the habeas petitioner to show the necessity for a hearing. Dickson v. Wainwright, 683 F. 2d at 351; Baldwin v. Blackburn, 653 F. 2d at 947. He cannot establish the requisite factual dispute, as Schultz has attempted to do in this case, by relying on “speculative and inconcrete claims.” Dickson v. Wainwright, 683 F. 2d at 351; Baldwin v. Blackburn, 653 F. 2d at 947.
Counsel must be appointed for an indigent federal habeas petitioner only when the interests of justice or due process so require. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A(g); Norris v. Wainwright, 588 F. 2d 130, 133 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 846, 100 S.Ct. 93, 62 L.Ed.2d 60 (1979). Since the habeas corpus petition lacked merit, the district court properly could decide not to conduct a hearing or appoint counsel.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
McNEAL v. Louie L. Wainwright, 722 F.2d 674 (11th Cir. 1984)…oth the state court and the district court were correct in holding that this argument amounted to a tactical argument well within the discretion of counsel, so obvious from the record that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. Schultz v. Wainwright, 701 F. 2d 900, 901 (11th Cir.1983); Dickson v. Wainwright, 683 F. 2d 348, 351 (11th Cir.1982). The sixth amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel is counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance given the totalit…
-
Hooks v. Louie L. Wainwright, 775 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir. 1985)…d Procedure § 4268 at 712 (1978). This Circuit has recognized on a case-by-case evaluation that for certain individuals due process or the “interests of justice” may require the appointment of a lawyer. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A(g); Schultz v. Wainwright, 701 F. 2d 900, 901 (11th Cir.1983); Norris v. Wainwright, 588 F. 2d 130, 133 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 846, 100 S.Ct. 93, 62 L.Ed.2d 60 (1979). Even in those cases, however, there is no defined right to appointment at state expense. The courts have also…
-
Antone v. Strickland, 706 F.2d 1534 (11th Cir. 1983)…42, 59 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978). Another exception exists where “the record before the district court was sufficient for a proper examination of [petitioner’s] claims.” Winfrey v. Maggio, 664 F. 2d 550, 552 (5th Cir. 1981). See also Schultz v. Wainwright, 701 F. 2d 900 at 901 (11th Cir.1983) (evidentiary hearing not required where the district court can determine merits of claim based on existing record). [*1548] Here, most of the factual issues appellant raises in his claim of ineffective assistance can be resolv…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Washington v. Strickland, 693 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Baldwin v. Blackburn, 653 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Tolbert Dickson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 683 F.2d 348 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Marlin v. United States, 444 U.S. 846 (U.S. 1979)
- F. K. G. Co., Inc. v. Keys Bottled GAS Co., 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1957)
- Cachoian v. United States, 385 U.S. 1029 (U.S. 1967)
- Chromiak v. California Mens Colony Superintendent, 385 U.S. 1029 (U.S. 1967)
- Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1956)
- Linam v. New Mexico, 444 U.S. 846 (U.S. 1979)
- Vill. of Hoffman Ests. v. The Flipside, 456 U.S. 950 (U.S. 1982)