Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ardoin v. Vannoy

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

September 12, 2017

AARON W. ARDOIN LA. DOC #237513
v.
DARRELL VANNOY

         SECTION P

          REBECCA DOHERTY JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CAROL B. WHITEHURST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Pro se petitioner Aaron W. Ardoin, an inmate in the custody of Louisiana&#3');">3');">3');">39;s Department of Corrections, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254');">4 on March 18, 2016. Petitioner attacks his 2010 conviction for Indecent Behavior with a Juvenile, Oral Sexual Battery and Aggravated Rape and sentence imposed thereon by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Evangeline Parish. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §63');">3');">3');">36 and the standing orders of the Court.

         Statement of the Case

         On May 6, 2008, the petitioner was indicted by a grand jury on charges of Indecent Behavior with a Juvenile, in violation of La. R.S. 14');">4:81(A)(1), Oral Sexual Battery, in violation of La. R.S. 14');">4:4');">43');">3');">3');">3.3');">3');">3');">3(A)(2) and Aggravated Rape, in violation of La. R.S. 14');">4:4');">42. On May 27, 2010, following a jury trial, he was found guilty as charged on all counts. He was sentenced on July 15, 2010, to life imprisonment at hard labor, for the aggravated rape, and to ten (10) years at hard labor for the oral sexual battery and indecent behavior with a juvenile, to run concurrently with each other and the life sentence.

         On October 1, 2010, petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that: (1) “the trial court erred in failing to grant the Motion to Suppress Defendant&#3');">3');">3');">39;s statements and in permitting the introduction at the trial of this case three statements given by the Appellant to the police over the course of two days as these statements were obtained in violation of the Appellant&#3');">3');">3');">39;s rights set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;” and (2) “the trial court violated Appellant&#3');">3');">3');">39;s Sixth Amendment right when it sentenced him to a sentence of ten years at hard labor under the enhanced sentencing provisions for indecent behavior with a juvenile based upon the findings of facts not reflected in the jury&#3');">3');">3');">39;s verdict.” [Doc. 1-4');">4, p. 8] The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on March 9, 2011. State of Louisiana v. Aaron W. Ardoin, 58 So.3');">3');">3');">3d (La.App. 3');">3');">3');">3 Cir. 3');">3');">3');">3/9/11), 2010-1018. [See also Rec. Doc. 1-4');">4, pp. 54');">4-86.] On March 28, 2011, petitioner applied for writs of certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court [Rec. Doc. 1-4');">4, p. 87-107]. On October 14');">4, 2011, his writ application was denied without comments. State of Louisiana v. Aaron W. Ardoin, 74');">4 So.3');">3');">3');">3d 218 (La. 10/14');">4/11), 2011-0653');">3');">3');">3. [See also Rec. Doc. 1-4');">4, p. 108.] He did not apply for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. [Doc. 1, p. 3');">3');">3');">3, ¶9(h).]

         On November 28, 2011, petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Docket No. 75984');">4-F, asserting the following: (1) “the conviction was obtained in violation of the constitution of the United States or the State of Louisiana, due to the ineffective assistance of counsel, when counsel failed to investigate prepare a defense. (See Strickland v. Washington, 4');">466 U.S. 668');">4');">466 U.S. 668, 104');">4 S.Ct. 2052');">104');">4 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674');">4 (1984');">4);” and (2) “the conviction was obtained in violation of the constitution of the United States or the State of Louisiana, when Petitioner was denied his right to compulsory process to call witnesses in his behalf, and denied the right to testify in his own behalf.” [Doc. 1-5, p. 8.] The Court held an evidentiary hearing on October 13');">3');">3');">3, 2013');">3');">3');">3, and denied petitioner&#3');">3');">3');">39;s application for relief. [Doc. 1-5, pp. 3');">3');">3');">36-4');">49.] Petitioner received the transcript of the evidentiary hearing containing the Court&#3');">3');">3');">39;s ruling on March 17, 2014');">4, and filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal on March 24');">4, 2014');">4. [Doc. 1-5, pp. 50-52.]

         On April 17, 2014');">4, Petitioner filed a writ application in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, Docket No. KH 14');">4-004');">420 [Doc. 1-5, pp. 54');">4-68], which was denied on August 12');">12, 2014');">4 [Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 69].

         On August 27, 2014');">4, Plaintiff filed a writ application in the Louisiana Supreme Court [Rec. Doc. 1-5, pp. 70-82]. On February 5, 2016, the writ was denied. State ex rel. Aaron W. Ardoin v. State of Louisiana, 14');">4-KH-1915. [Doc. 1-5, pp. 83');">3');">3');">3-84');">4.]

         Petitioner filed the instant petition for habeas relief on March 18, 2016. He makes the following arguments:

1. His 5th and 14');">4th Amendment rights were violated when statements were taken without notifying him of his rights (Miranda violation);
2. His 6th and 14');">4th Amendment rights were violated when he was denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to investigate; and
3');">3');">3');">3. His 6th and 14');">4th Amendment rights were violated when he was denied the right to testify and denied the right to call witnesses.

         The matter is now before the Court.

         Law and Analysis

         I. Standard of Review - 28 U.S.C. § 2254');">4

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254');">4, governs habeas corpus relief. The AEDPA limits how a federal court may consider habeas claims. After the state courts have “adjudicated the merits” of an inmate&#3');">3');">3');">39;s complaints, federal review “is limited to the record that was before the state court[.]” Cullen v. Pinholster, 13');">3');">3');">31 S.Ct. 13');">3');">3');">388');">13');">3');">3');">31 S.Ct. 13');">3');">3');">388, 13');">3');">3');">398 (2011). An inmate must show that the adjudication of the claim in state court:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254');">4(d)(1)-(2).

         A decision is “contrary to” clearly established Federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by . . . [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Dowthitt v. Johnson, 3');">3');">3');">30 F.3');">3');">3');">3d 73');">3');">3');">33');">3');">3');">3');">23');">3');">3');">30 F.3');">3');">3');">3d 73');">3');">3');">33');">3');">3');">3, 74');">40-4');">41 (5 Cir. 2000) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 3');">3');">3');">362');">529 U.S. 3');">3');">3');">362 (2000)). “The ‘contrary to&#3');">3');">3');">39; requirement refers to holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of . . . [the Supreme Court&#3');">3');">3');">39;s] decisions as of the time of the relevant state court decision.” Id. at 74');">40. Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ only if the state court “identifies the correct governing legal principle from . .. [the Supreme Court&#3');">3');">3');">39;s] decisions but unreasonably applies the principle to the facts of the prisoner&#3');">3');">3');">39;s case.” Id. at 74');">41.

         Section 2254');">4(d)(2) speaks to factual determinations made by the state courts. Federal courts presume such determinations to be correct; however, a petitioner can rebut this presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254');">4(e)(1).

         II. Petitioner&#3');">3');">3');">39;s Claims

         A. Claim One: Denial of Motion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.