JOHNSON v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA

N.D. Florida

JOHNSON v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA

DecidedFebruary 29, 2024

Docket4:22-cv-00226

StatusUnknown

This text of JOHNSON v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA (JOHNSON v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

JOHNSON v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA, (N.D. Fla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

CALEB JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-226-AW-MAF

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_______________________________/ FINAL ORDER Petitioner Caleb Johnson, through counsel, filed a § 2254 petition asserting twelve grounds for relief. ECF No. 1. None has merit. Having considered the report and recommendation (ECF No. 22), and having considered de novo the issues raised in Johnson’s objections (ECF No. 29), I now adopt the report and recommendation and incorporate it into this order. Some issues presented are—at best—borderline frivolous. For example, Johnson contends “that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by erroneously advising him that he should not testify at trial.” ECF No. 1 at 17. He says “[t]his was patently unreasonable advice” because with a self-defense claim, “the jury wants to hear the defendant say that he is innocent.” Id. at 18. The state court properly rejected this IAC claim under Strickland. And with the “doubly deferential” review here, Gissendaner v. Seaboldt, 735 F.3d 1311, 1323 (11th Cir. 2013), this claim had no hope of succeeding.

In his objection as to this claim, Johnson contends the magistrate judge misread Hodges—a state case Johnson relied on here and in his Rule 3.850 motion. See ECF No. 29 at 4-8. But even if that is so, it changes nothing. Here, with or

without Hodges (or any other state decision Johnson cites), Johnson has not established deficient performance or prejudice—or that the state court decision finding no prejudice was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). I have considered all of Johnson’s objections, and they are all overruled. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “The § 2254 petition is denied.” A

certificate of appealability is DENIED. The clerk will close the file. SO ORDERED on February 29, 2024. s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

CALEB JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-226-AW-MAF

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_______________________________/ FINAL ORDER Petitioner Caleb Johnson, through counsel, filed a § 2254 petition asserting twelve grounds for relief. ECF No. 1. None has merit. Having considered the report and recommendation (ECF No. 22), and having considered de novo the issues raised in Johnson’s objections (ECF No. 29), I now adopt the report and recommendation and incorporate it into this order. Some issues presented are—at best—borderline frivolous. For example, Johnson contends “that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by erroneously advising him that he should not testify at trial.” ECF No. 1 at 17. He says “[t]his was patently unreasonable advice” because with a self-defense claim, “the jury wants to hear the defendant say that he is innocent.” Id. at 18. The state court properly rejected this IAC claim under Strickland. And with the “doubly deferential” review here, Gissendaner v. Seaboldt, 735 F.3d 1311, 1323 (11th Cir. 2013), this claim had no hope of succeeding.

In his objection as to this claim, Johnson contends the magistrate judge misread Hodges—a state case Johnson relied on here and in his Rule 3.850 motion. See ECF No. 29 at 4-8. But even if that is so, it changes nothing. Here, with or

without Hodges (or any other state decision Johnson cites), Johnson has not established deficient performance or prejudice—or that the state court decision finding no prejudice was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United

States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). I have considered all of Johnson’s objections, and they are all overruled. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “The § 2254 petition is denied.” A

certificate of appealability is DENIED. The clerk will close the file. SO ORDERED on February 29, 2024. s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JOHNSON v. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-secretary-department-of-corrections-state-of-florida-flnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack