United States District Court, D. Nevada
PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge.
Before the court for a decision on the merits is an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jamaar Jerome Williams, a Nevada prisoner. ECF No. 36.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises from incidents occurring on November 7 and 8, 2000, in a trailer park located in Clark County, Nevada. Based on evidence presented at trial, petitioner Williams shot and killed Reggie Ezell and shot at Darin Archie (missing him); then, the next day, he shot James Polito and Ricky Policastro, both of whom survived. Pursuant to jury verdicts, Williams was convicted of one count of murder with the use of a deadly weapon, three counts of attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder.
The state district court entered its judgment of conviction on April 30, 2002. Williams appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on October 16, 2003. On November 19, 2004, Williams filed a state habeas corpus petition, which was denied by the state district court on March 4, 2005. Williams appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed on June 1, 2005.
This court received Williams's federal habeas petition on July 20, 2005. On January 16, 2007, the court appointed counsel for Williams and permitted him to file an amended petition. A second amended petition was filed on September 21, 2007. On May 24, 2009, the court stayed proceedings to allow Williams to exhaust state court remedies for unexhausted claims in his petition.
On June 23, 2009, Williams initiated his second state post-conviction proceeding. After an evidentiary hearing on March 19, 2010, the state district court entered an order on June 1, 2010, denying Williams's petition on procedural grounds. Williams appealed. On May 9, 2011, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision.
On July 25, 2011, this court re-opened the proceedings herein. Pursuant to a motion to dismiss, this court concluded that Ground Two and Ground Three (a, b, and c) are barred by the doctrine of procedural default. Ground One and Ground Three(d) remain before the court for disposition on the merits.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
This action is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the standard of review under AEDPA:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the standard of review under AEDPA:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence ...