Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_13-cv-00514/USCOURTS-alsd-2_13-cv-00514-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

VANESSA GILL, ) 

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 2:13-0514-KD-B

BOBBY BARRETT, et al., )

Respondents. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge (doc. 21). After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) is adopted in part as the opinion of this Court, as follows:

I. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and procedural background 

(Section I) and discussion (Section II) and finds that Gill is not entitled to habeas relief. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that her petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and that 

this action is DISMISSED. 

II. The Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Gill is not entitled to a 

Certificate of Appealability as to Claim One. (Doc. 21, p. 2, recommending “that if Gill seeks the 

issuance of a certificate of appealability, her request be denied”; and p. 51-52, finding that 

“[n]one of Gill’s claims would warrant the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability[.]”) 

In Claim One, Gill asserts that her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated 

by the state court’s unreasonable application of the standard for sufficient proof set forth in 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S.Ct. 2782 (1979). Specifically, Gill asserts that the 

Case 2:13-cv-00514-KD-B Document 22 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 3
2

trial court erred by denying her motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the 

evidence. The Magistrate Judge explained that “[i]n assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support a state court conviction in a habeas proceeding, the relevant question is ‘whether, after

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact 

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”. (Doc. 21, p. 

13) (quoting Erwin v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 568 Fed. Appx. 749, 751 

(11th Cir. 2014) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319)). The Magistrate Judge found, and this Court 

adopted the finding, that “based upon the evidence presented [at trial] ... a rational trier of fact 

could have, by fair inference, found” that the essential elements of the crime were met. The 

Magistrate Judge had explained that the “fact that the jury could have drawn contrary inferences 

favoring Gill based on the same evidence is of no moment because habeas relief is only proper 

‘where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision 

conflicts with [the Supreme] Court’s precedents.” (Doc. 21, p. 20) (citing Morton v. Sec’y, Dep’t 

of Corr. 684 F 3d 1157, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012)). 

The habeas corpus statute states that an applicant is entitled to appeal a district court’s 

denial of a habeas corpus petition only where a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The statute explains that a “certificate of appealability 

may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the 

constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: 

The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 

Case 2:13-cv-00514-KD-B Document 22 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 3
3

S.Ct. 1595 (2000) or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further.” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

The Court finds that Gill could meet her burden to demonstrate that reasonable jurists 

would find debatable the district court’s assessment of Gill’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and 

its decision that the state trial court did not unreasonably apply the standard for sufficient proof

identified in Jackson v. Virginia. Therefore, Gill is entitled to a Certificate of Appealability as to 

Claim One. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that any certificate of appealability filed by 

Petitioner be DENIED as to Claims Two through Six, but GRANTED as to Claim One. Since 

the Court has found that Gill is entitled to a Certificate of Appealability as to Claim One, if she 

appeals, and if she is indigent, she would be entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE this 27th day of June 2016.

 

s/Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00514-KD-B Document 22 Filed 06/27/16 Page 3 of 3