Noah Monroe Tidwell v. Freddie Butler , 415 F. App'x 979 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10643 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 25, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 3:08-cv-02053-JHH-RRA
NOAH MONROE TIDWELL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FREDDIE BUTLER,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(February 25, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Noah Monroe Tidwell, an Alabama state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the denial of his federal habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a
certificate of appealability (COA) on the following issues: (1) whether the district
court properly found that issue three of Tidwell’s § 2254 petition was not
cognizable on federal review; and (2) whether the district court properly denied
issue five of Tidwell’s § 2254 petition on the ground that his brother’s testimony
would not have damaged the state’s case. After review, we affirm the denial of
Tidwell’s petition.1
I.
Tidwell first asserts the admission of improper character evidence at his trial
for rape and other sexual crimes deprived him of his due process rights. “As a
general rule, a federal court in a habeas corpus case will not review the trial court’s
actions concerning the admissibility of evidence.” Osborne v. Wainwright, 720
F.2d 1237, 1238 (11th Cir. 1983). “However, where a state court’s ruling is
claimed to have deprived a defendant of his right to due process, a federal court
should then inquire only to determine whether the error was of such magnitude as
to deny fundamental fairness to the criminal trial.” Id. (citations omitted).
1
We review a district court’s denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 de novo.
Gamble v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 450 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2006).
2
The district court did not err in finding the claim was not cognizable on
federal habeas review because the admission of evidence concerning Tidwell’s
prior bad acts was a question of state law that did not call into question the
fundamental fairness of Tidwell’s trial.2
II.
Tidwell next asserts his brother, Eddie Tidwell (Eddie), allegedly sat on the
grand jury that returned the indictment against him, and therefore could not testify
on his behalf at trial. Tidwell argues “prosecutorial misconduct” occurred because
Eddie was prohibited from testifying, thus depriving Tidwell of his due process
rights. Further, he contends his Sixth Amendment compulsory process right was
violated since he could not call Eddie as a witness at trial.
The only evidence Tidwell submitted that refers to Eddie’s role with respect
to the grand jury hearing is an investigative report of an interview of Eddie.
According to the report, Eddie was allowed to remain in the room during the grand
jury hearing, but he did not vote as a member of the grand jury. In addition, the
report notes that Tidwell’s attorney did not contact Eddie to testify as a witness,
and that Eddie would have been cooperative if approached. Further, Tidwell has
2
The evidence pertaining to Tidwell’s violent nature and prior acts of physical abuse was
relevant to show the relationship of dominance Tidwell had over his daughters and their general
fear of him, thus satisfying the forcible compulsion element necessary to commit rape of a
minor-child. See Powe v. State, 597 So. 2d 721, 729 (Ala. 1991).
3
produced no evidence that, had Tidwell’s attorney attempted to call Eddie as a
witness, Eddie would have been prevented from testifying. Because there is no
merit to Tidwell’s claim that his due process rights were violated by prosecutorial
misconduct or that he was denied his right to compulsory process, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4