Opinion ID: 4174304
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-Trial Proceedings and Trial

Text: 1 We reject Petitioner’s argument that we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s conditional grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Contrary to Petitioner’s claim, the Secretary did not need to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to file this appeal. See Lawhorn v. Allen, 519 F.3d 1272, 1285 n.20 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that an appeal by the State or federal government does not require a certificate of appealability); see also Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(3) (“A certificate of appealability is not required when a state or its representative or the United States or its representative appeals.”). 2 Case: 16-10561 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 Page: 3 of 17 In January 2007, the State of Florida charged Petitioner by way of an information with one count of robbery, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 812.13(2)(c), for robbing the Southeastern Bank in Nassau County, Florida, on December 8, 2006. Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a witness list with several names, including Regina Walker. One month after filing the witness list, Petitioner moved for a continuance to prepare for trial and to depose several witnesses who had not been located. Petitioner’s trial was eventually set for the week of March 10, 2008, with a final pre-trial on February 28, 2008. On February 22, 2008, the State filed a statement of particulars, indicating that the robbery occurred on December 8, 2006, at approximately 4:53 p.m. at the Southeastern Bank in Hilliard, Florida. The State also demanded written notice of any alibi witnesses. On February 28, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of alibi, stating that Walker would testify that Petitioner was at her and Jamie Gilbreth’s home at the time of the alleged robbery. The State responded with a list of alibi-rebuttal witnesses, including Jamie and Raychelle Gilbreth and Erica Leech. The State deposed Walker approximately one week prior to the scheduled trial. In her deposition, Walker stated that she lived with her boyfriend, Jamie Gilbreth. She had met Petitioner twice: once at a store and once at a barbeque at her home. When asked the date of the barbeque, Walker responded: “I’m not really sure. I thought it would be on a Saturday, but I’m not sure.” She did not 3 Case: 16-10561 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 Page: 4 of 17 know whether the barbeque was on a Friday (as was the day of the robbery), or a Saturday, but she knew that the barbeque was after Thanksgiving but before Christmas. She initially stated that she knew the barbeque was the day of the robbery because Raychelle Gilbreth called her to say that she had been arrested. However, Walker later conceded that she could not say with certainty that Petitioner was at her house the day of the robbery: December 8, 2006. On the morning of trial, Petitioner moved for another continuance, seeking additional time to locate Walker, as Petitioner had been notified by Walker’s stepfather that Walker had moved to Georgia. The State opposed the motion, on the basis that Walker testified at her deposition that she was not sure whether Petitioner was at her home on the day of the robbery. The State further asserted that it would burden the prosecution to continue the trial, as the State’s witnesses were all available to begin trial. Petitioner argued that Walker’s testimony was critical and that he had made several attempts to serve Walker in the past ten days, including hiring two different process servers. The district court denied the motion, stating that “[t]he matter ha[d] been set for trial for two months” and that the case needed to move forward. At trial, the State presented testimony from several witnesses, including Jamie Gilbreth, Raychelle Gilbreth, and Erica Leech. Jamie Gilbreth, who was at that time in jail for an unrelated robbery charge, testified that Petitioner had asked 4 Case: 16-10561 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 Page: 5 of 17 him to help rob a bank in Hilliard. Jamie also testified that Petitioner spent time at his house (that he shared with Walker) on the day of the robbery, but that Petitioner left the house with Jamie’s sister, Raychelle Gilbreth. Neither Raychelle nor Petitioner were at Jamie’s home just before 5:00 p.m. (the time of the robbery). The State also called Raychelle Gilbreth, who testified that she had pled guilty to robbery and was awaiting sentencing. She admitted robbing the Southeastern Bank in Hilliard on December 8, 2006, and explained that the robbery was Petitioner’s idea and that he took all of the money after she robbed the bank. Another witness, Erica Leech testified that she met Petitioner at Jamie and Walker’s residence on the day of the robbery, and that Petitioner and Raychelle left the residence around 4:00 p.m.. Petitioner testified in his own defense. He stated that he went to Jamie and Walker’s home for a barbeque on the day of the robbery. He fell asleep at the party, woke up around 5:30 p.m., and left shortly thereafter. Petitioner denied going near the bank on the day of the robbery. The jury found Petitioner guilty of robbery as charged. Petitioner moved for a new trial, asserting that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s denial of his motion for continuance to produce a properly subpoenaed witness. The trial court denied the motion. 5 Case: 16-10561 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 Page: 6 of 17 At sentencing, Petitioner again moved for a new trial on the ground that Raychelle Gilbreth perjured herself in her deposition and trial testimony. Raychelle was called to the stand and testified that she was not completely honest during her deposition, but that she had been truthful at trial on every point except for her testimony that Petitioner kept all of the money. On cross-examination, Raychelle maintained her testimony that Petitioner was involved in the robbery. The trial court granted Petitioner’s motion for a new trial. Following the State’s motion for rehearing, in which it asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant Petitioner’s oral motion for a new trial, the trial court granted the State’s motion and set a date for sentencing. The trial court ultimately sentenced Petitioner to 15 years’ imprisonment. Petitioner appealed to the Florida appellate court. He argued in relevant part that the trial court erred by denying his motion for continuance, which prohibited him from calling a crucial alibi witness in support of his defense at trial and therefore violated his due process rights. The Florida appellate court affirmed in a