REILLY
v.
DIXON
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 accepted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denying a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. He moved to expand the record and for an evidentiary he…
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 Habeas Corpus Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 59, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner's objections, ECF No. 64.
This Court has considered, without hearing, Petitioner's motion to expand the record, ECF No. 65, to include two affidavits from his parents in support of Petitioner's ineffective assistance claim in ground one of his petition, and Petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 66. As to both motions, this Court's "[r]eview of factual determinations under § 2254(d)(2) is expressly limited to 'the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.'" Shoop v. Twyford, 596 U.S. 811, 819 (2022). Likewise, "review of legal claims under § 2254(d)(1) is also 'limited to the record that was before the state court.'" Id. (quoting Cullen v.
Pinholster, 563 U.S. 180, 181 (2011)). This Court may admit new evidence in only limited situations under § 2254(e)(2), neither of which are present here.
Petitioner's ineffective assistance claim in ground one boiled down to a credibility determination at the state court. Ultimately, the state court believed Petitioner's trial counsel's testimony over Petitioner's and Petitioner's father's testimony regarding whether his trial counsel conveyed a particular plea offer to Petitioner. Petitioner cannot now relitigate this credibility determination by seeking to inject new testimony that was arguably discovered prior to the state court's evidentiary hearing but was not introduced at that time. In short, "[f]ederal courts sitting in habeas are not an alternative forum for trying facts and issues which a prisoner made insufficient effort to pursue in state proceedings.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 437 (2000). Petitioner's motion to expand the record, ECF No. 65, and Petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 66, are due to be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 59, is accepted and adopted, over Petitioner's objections, as this Court's opinion. Petitioner's motion to expand the record and motion for evidentiary hearing, ECF Nos. 65 and 66, are DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, "The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, challenging the 2009 judgment of conviction and the 2015 revocation of probation
2
in State of Florida v. Sean P. Reilly, Leon County Circuit Court Case No. 2008-CF- 4221, is DENIED.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED on September 10, 2024.
s/Mark E. Walker Chief United States District Judge
3