William F. Tittle v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections ( 2015 )

Case: 14-11376 Date Filed: 06/02/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11376
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-02489-JDW-TBM
WILLIAM F. TITTLE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 2, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-11376 Date Filed: 06/02/2015 Page: 2 of 4
William Tittle, having been convicted in the Circuit Court of Pinellas
County, Florida, pursuant to a plea of guilty to all three counts of an information—
Counts 1 and 2, charging sexual battery; and Count 3, charging attempted
kidnapping—is presently serving a total prison sentence of thirty years. 1 The
District Court denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus collaterally attacking
his convictions, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and he appeals. We issued a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) on one issue: “Whether Tittle’s due-process rights were
violated when the [Pinellas County Circuit Court] failed to evaluate his
competency before accepting his guilty plea.”
“[T]he conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent
violates due process.” Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 86 S. Ct. 836, 838, 15
L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966). “Pate . . . established a rebuttable presumption of
incompetency upon a showing by a habeas petitioner that the state trial court failed
to hold a competency hearing on its own initiative despite information raising a
bona fide doubt as to the petitioner’s competency.” James v. Singletary, 957 F.2d
1562, 1571 (11th Cir. 1992). The COA issued in this case framed a Pate claim.
Tittle contends that the information before the Pinellas County Circuit Court at the
time he pleaded guilty raised a bona fide doubt as to his competency to stand trial
1
Tittle is serving concurrent sentences of 30 years (the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence) on Counts 1 and 2, and 15 years on Count 3.
2
Case: 14-11376 Date Filed: 06/02/2015 Page: 3 of 4
such that the court was required, but failed, to hold a hearing to determine his
competency.
Florida law holds that Pate claims “can and must be raised on direct appeal.”
Nelson v. State, 43 So. 3d 20, 33 (Fla. 2010) (per curiam) (citing James, 957 F.2d
at 1572). Tittle did not take a direct appeal from his convictions. He did not raise
the claim until he moved the Pinellas County Circuit Court for collateral relief
under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The Circuit Court refused to
consider the claim on collateral attack, holding that the claim was procedurally
defaulted because Tittle had not raised it on direct appeal. The Circuit Court held
alternatively that at the time Tittle pleaded guilty, the court had no information
before it sufficient to require a competency evaluation. Tittle appealed, and the
Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed. Tittle v. State, 44 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 2d
Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (per curiam).
In disposing of Tittle’s habeas petition, the District Court upheld the Florida
courts’ procedural-default ruling on the ground that it “rest[ed] upon [an]
‘independent and adequate’ state ground.” Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308, 1313
(11th Cir. 2001). Doc. 16, at 8. We find no error in the District Court’s holding.
We likewise find no error in the District Court’s holding that Tittle failed to
demonstrate cause for the procedural default and resulting prejudice. Doc. 16, at
9–10. Tittle is therefore not entitled to habeas corpus relief on the ground that the
3
Case: 14-11376 Date Filed: 06/02/2015 Page: 4 of 4
Pinellas County Circuit Court denied him due process of law in failing to evaluate
his competency before accepting his guilty plea.
AFFIRMED.
4