ARROWOOD v. DIXON

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: June 7, 2022
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GARRETT A. ARROWOOD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv151-MW/MJF

RICKY D. DIXON,

Respondent. _________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s objections, ECF No. 22.1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1 Petitioner objects, in part, to the fact that the asserted Crawford violation underpinning his Strickland claim in Ground 1 is never addressed head on in the state-court decisions or in the Report and Recommendation. In his briefing on the habeas petition, Petitioner asserts his state trial counsel’s decision to elicit certain hearsay is a Crawford violation on its face and per se unreasonable. However, the issue of whether defense counsel can elicit hearsay that is otherwise inadmissible pursuant to Crawford is more nuanced than Petitioner frames it. Without question, defense counsel may waive their client’s right of confrontation and elicit such testimony that would otherwise be inadmissible pursuant to Crawford absent dissent from the defendant. See Janosky v. St. Amand, 594 F.3d 39, 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (listing cases noting that counsel may waive client’s right of confrontation absent dissent from the defendant). Here, it appears Petitioner’s focus at the trial level and before this Court was the reasonableness of trial counsel’s strategy in eliciting such testimony, but Petitioner has presented no evidence or argument as to whether Petitioner validly waived his right of confrontation at trial when his counsel elicited the co-defendant’s hearsay. The report and recommendation, ECF No. 21, is accepted and adopted, over the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment

stating, “Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. SO ORDERED on June 7, 2022.

s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge