Opinion ID: 78439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ex Parte Contacts During Post-Conviction Proceedings

Text: Ferguson asserts that he did not receive full and fair state post-conviction proceedings because of ex parte contacts between the prosecutor and the post-conviction judge. He requests that we either hold a new federal court hearing in which no deference would be given to the state courts' findings of fact or, in the alternative, that we permit an evidentiary hearing to investigate the nature and extent of these ex parte contacts. In January 1988, Ferguson's counsel learned from a state attorney that there had been ex parte communications between state counsel and Judge Friedman, the judge initially assigned to Ferguson's 3.850 motion, allegedly regarding the rescheduling of Ferguson's psychiatric evaluations. At a 19 May 1988 hearing before Judge Snyder, to whom the case had been reassigned from Judge Friedman, Ferguson's counsel complained about these communications. Judge Snyder stated that he would be open to ex parte communications if they would help expedite the scheduling of the examinations and that he would inform Ferguson's counsel about any such communications immediately after they occurred. [45] Shortly thereafter, there was an ex parte contact between the State and Judge Snyder, allegedly about scheduling issues, about which Ferguson's counsel was informed promptly. On a 26 May 1988 conference call between the parties and Judge Snyder, Ferguson's counsel indicated that he believed that such contacts were improper and violated Ferguson's due process and Sixth Amendment rights. On 23 February 1989, Judge Snyder denied Ferguson's motion to stay the 3.850 proceedings due to Ferguson's purported incompetency. On 22 March 1989, Ferguson's counsel filed a motion requesting that Judge Snyder disqualify himself from the proceedings because the ex parte contacts made the judge unable to be impartial or maintain the appearance of impartiality. The circuit court denied this motion, which it found to be legally insufficient for three reasons: (1) it did not comply with the technical requirements of Florida Statute 38.10 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230; (2) it was untimely and intended solely to delay the implementation of an adverse ruling; and (3) it did not set forth a sufficient factual basis for a well-founded belief that the court would be prejudiced against Ferguson. Ferguson's counsel subsequently sought a writ of prohibition with the Florida Supreme Court, which the court summarily denied. [46] He then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which the Court denied. The district court denied Ferguson's claim that the ex parte communications deprived him of a full and fair hearing. The court treated this issue as an argument that the factual findings of the circuit court in the 3.850 proceedings were not entitled to a presumption of correctness. It noted that the circuit court had asserted that the ex parte communications solely addressed scheduling issues, and found that there was no evidence in the record either to contradict this assertion or to suggest that the circuit court's factual findings had been affected by the ex parte communications. As a result, the district court concluded that the circuit court's factual findings were entitled to a presumption of correctness. Although the district court did not address the issue explicitly, this claim may be subject to a procedural bar. The circuit court's denial of the motion to recuse was based on at least one state procedural ground, the untimely filing of the motion, in addition to the more substantive ground of failing to show a factual basis for fear of prejudice due to the contacts. [47] For the purposes of a possible procedural bar, this reasoning would be controlling since the Florida Supreme Court summarily denied the petition, and we treat such summary denials as implicitly accepting both the judgment and the rationale of the trial court. See Harmon v. Barton, 894 F.2d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir.1990) (noting that the clear inference to be drawn from the appellate court's per curiam affirmance of the trial court's decision explicitly based on procedural default is that the court accepted not only the judgment but the reasoning of the trial court). In this case, the circuit court's rationale is couched in the alternative, so we can and should apply the timeliness procedural bar if it was correctly applied. See Alderman, 22 F.3d at 1549. We thus must determine whether the procedural bar constitutes an adequate and independent state ground. See id. In this case, Ferguson's counsel brought the original motion to recuse pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230 and Florida Statute § 38.10. Since Florida courts treat 3.850 proceedings as civil actions, Ferguson probably should have cited Rule 1.432 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs disqualification of judges in civil cases, rather than Rule 3.230. [48] See State v. White, 470 So.2d 1377, 1378 (Fla.1985) (describing 3.850 motions as civil actions). In any event, the relevant timeliness standards for all three of these provisions were essentially the same at the time the motion was filed, so this does not affect our analysis. [49] Neither Rule 3.230 nor Florida Statute 38.10 discussed timeliness for a post-conviction disqualification motion. The only time bar mentioned in the versions of those provisions then in effect was Rule 3.230's requirement that the motion be filed no less than 10 days before the time the case is called for trial unless good cause is shown for failure to so file within such time. [50] Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.230(c) (1989 ed.); see Fla. Stat. § 38.10. The applicable version of Rule 1.432, on the other hand, required the movant to file the motion within a reasonable time after discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.432(c) (1989 ed.). In addition to this statutory guidance, Florida courts have deemed a motion for recusal to be untimely if the moving party waits to file the motion until after it has suffered an adverse ruling, unless the party can show good cause for the delay. See Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla.1986). The first two prongs of the adequate and independent state grounds test have been met here. The last state court to render judgment on the issue clearly and expressly invoked state procedural grounds to resolve the claim. See Judd, 250 F.3d at 1313. Additionally, that court's decision rested solidly on state law grounds, without any federal issues coming into play. See id. The only relevant question therefore is whether the procedural bar was applied in an arbitrary or unprecedented fashion. Id. In this case, Ferguson's counsel was aware of the ex parte contacts as early as January 1988 yet failed to file the motion seeking disqualification until more than a year later. Furthermore, in that motion he admitted that he decided to file the motion only after suffering an adverse ruling on the motion to stay. Accordingly, the motion would be untimely under Florida law unless Ferguson can show good cause for the delay in filing. See Fischer, 497 So.2d at 243. Ferguson asserts that this delay was acceptable because his counsel detected Judge Snyder's potential bias only when that ruling came out. However, this contention is belied by the fact that his counsel had objected on multiple prior occasions to the ex parte contacts but did not file a motion in those instances. In light of this background, the decision to wait until after the adverse ruling appears to be the kind of delaying tactic that Florida courts have frowned upon. [51] See id. at 242 (noting that a recusal motion was designed to frustrate the process by which petitioner suffered an adverse ruling); see also Marcotte v. Gloeckner, 679 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (per curiam) (deeming timely a recusal motion filed after an adverse ruling where the underlying facts were discovered only after that ruling). Given this precedent, there is no indication that the circuit court arbitrarily applied the procedural bar. See Judd, 250 F.3d at 1313. Since Ferguson has not alleged cause or prejudice for the procedural default (other than the contention that the procedural rule was not regularly followed) nor does there appear to be any fundamental miscarriage of justice, we cannot hear the claim. See Zeigler, 345 F.3d at 1304. The district court thus correctly denied Ferguson's habeas claim with respect to this issue. [52]