Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

NORMOND L. HALE, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv5825-MCR-HTC

RICKY D. DIXON,

Respondent. 

_______________________________/

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 

recommending the denial of Petitioner Normond Hale’s amended petition filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 22. The Plaintiff was furnished a copy of 

the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections 

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of all timely filed objections, see ECF No. 25. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed 

objections, the Court has determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted. The undersigned finds it appropriate to comment additionally only on the 

objection to Ground One. First, contrary to the objection arguing that deficient 

performance was not addressed, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that the state 

court did address deficient performance, and also, in an abundance of caution, the 

Case 3:20-cv-05825-MCR-HTC Document 26 Filed 05/24/23 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:20cv5825-MCR-HTC

Magistrate Judge conducted an alternative de novo review finding no deficient

performance, which the Court also adopts. Second, the Court rejects Hale’s 

argument that the state postconviction court failed to apply the correct standard for 

prejudice. The state postconviction court expressly quoted the correct federal 

standard under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984). See ECF 

No. 14–10 at 31 (requiring a showing of “a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different” to establish prejudice). Moreover, the state court provided a careful 

analysis which demonstrates that this standard was applied, despite omitting the 

phrase “reasonable probability” from the final line of analysis. See generally ECF 

No. 14–10 at 35–38. Even applying de novo review of that decision, there is no 

reasonable probability on this record that had counsel presented Hale’s military 

records to show that his conduct in this incident was an anomaly, or presented 

evidence of a prior head injury, the result at sentencing would have been different. 

The military records were cumulative––counsel did inform the sentencing court of 

Hale’s 20-year military service, the court knew he had no prior criminal history, and 

letters presented in mitigation outlined that Hale’s actions were contrary to his 

normal character. Hale does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the 

prior head injury was admittedly unproven and thus speculative, and the state court 

did take into consideration an altered mental state due to Hale’s self-inflicted head 

Case 3:20-cv-05825-MCR-HTC Document 26 Filed 05/24/23 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3 

Case No. 3:20cv5825-MCR-HTC

injury at the time, and even this was found to be unavailing in light of the egregious 

factual circumstances. No evidentiary hearing is required, and the objections are 

overruled. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 22, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 

 2. The amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the 

conviction in State v. Hale, 2014 CF 693, in the First Judicial District, in and for 

Santa Rosa County, Florida, ECF Doc. 5, is DENIED without an evidentiary 

hearing. 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

 4. The clerk of court is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May 2023. 

 M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:20-cv-05825-MCR-HTC Document 26 Filed 05/24/23 Page 3 of 3