United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL P. MILLS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Trevor Hoskins, an inmate in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections, has filed a pro se habeas
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the
conviction and sentence for domestic aggravated assault that
he received in the Circuit Court of Washington County,
Mississippi. Having considered the submission of the parties,
the State court record, and the law applicable to
Hoskins' claims, the Court finds that the petition should
be denied, for the reasons that follow.
Facts and Procedural History
6:50 a.m. on July 4, 2012, Armilla Lucius
(“Lucius”) called the 911 dispatch in Greenville,
Mississippi, and reported to responding officers that she had
been beaten by Trevor Hoskins, who was asleep in the bedroom
at the time she made the 911 call. See Doc. #14-3 at
88-89-91; 110-113. Officers testified that when they arrived
at Lucius' residence, Lucius had to crawl to open the
locked door for officers, and it was reported that she was
covered in so much blood and had sustained so many bruises
that she appeared to have suffered “a beating in
astronomical proportions.” Id. at 92-95;
110-13. The crime scene was described as “horrific,
” and officers found broken glass in the living room
and blood in almost every room of the house. Id. at
100; 106-08; 111-13; see also Doc. #14-4 at 10-13.
Guided by Lucius' statements regarding the location of
her assailant, officers entered a bedroom and found a male,
dressed in a t-shirt and boxers, asleep in the bed. Doc.
#14-3 at 96-97; 107. The male, subsequently identified as
Hoskins, was arrested, and Lucius was taken to the hospital.
Id. at 94; 97-98; 107.
to Lucius' medical records, she suffered a broken arm, a
broken leg, fractures in her nasal cavity, and bruising
throughout her entire body as a result of the attack. Doc.
#14-4 at 22. Dr. William Barber, the trauma surgeon who
treated Lucius at the hospital, testified that she had a
scalp laceration, a broken right arm, a broken left lower
leg, and a broken nose. Id. at 34-35. These injuries
would have been caused by multiple blows, Dr. Barber stated,
and Lucius reported her pain level as a 10 out of 10 when she
arrived at the hospital. Id. at 35. Dr. Barber
testified that Lucius required surgery for both her arm and
her leg fractures. Id. at 36. Testimony was also
offered that Lucius' arm never healed properly, and that
she has a permanent limp after the attack. Id. at
reported that she had been dating Hoskins for approximately
two months as of July 4, 2012. Doc. #14-3 at 101; Doc. #14-4
at 40. She testified that the evening of July 3, 2012, she
had gone to sleep alone in her home and was later awakened by
Hoskins hitting her on the head with a beer bottle.
Id. at 43. Hoskins struck her with a baseball bat as
she attempted to flee, and he pursued her through several
rooms striking her with the bat. Id. at 43-48.
Lucius lost consciousness, but when she came to, she dragged
herself to a phone and placed a call to 911 while Lucius was
lying in bed. Id. at 50-51.
were taken from the t-shirt Hoskins was wearing at the time
of his arrest, and DNA swabs were taken from Lucius. See Doc.
# 14-3 at 115-117; Doc. #14-4 at 4-5, 13. The baseball bat
used in the attack, which was found lying on an ironing board
in the bedroom, was taken into evidence and swabbed. Doc.
#14-3 at 101, 117; Doc. #14-4 at 4-5. Forensic testimony
established that Lucius could not be excluded as the donor of
DNA that was recovered from the cuttings of Hoskins'
t-shirt and the bat. Doc. #14-3 at 115-117. In fact, the
genetic profile generated from the sample was determined to
occur with a “frequency of approximately 1 and greater
than 10 billion random unrelated people[.]”
Id. at 120. In other words, the genetic profile
generated from the evidence matched the victim. Id.
Taylor (“Taylor”), a prior romantic partner of
Hoskins' who was also one of his prior victims, was
allowed to testify to Hoskins' prior assault of her
“for purposes of intent and knowledge, lack of accident
or mistake.” Doc. #14-4 at 89; see also Doc.
#14-3 at 66-68 and 74-75. Taylor dated Hoskins for
approximately three months prior to his relationship with
Lucius. Doc. #14-4 at 79-81. She testified that Hoskins tried
to kill her in February 2012 after they argued concerning his
allegations that she was seeing other men. Id. at
81-84. Taylor stated that Hoskins, who had been driving a
vehicle in which she was riding at the time the argument
began, parked the car, opened the passenger side door, and
physically pulled Taylor from the vehicle while beating her
with his fists and kicking her with steel-toed boots.
Id. at 83-86. During this attack, he choked her,
attempted to gouge out her eyes, and cut her neck with a
knife. Id. at 86-87. He bit her face and back, and
he actually bit off a part of her ear. Id. Taylor
had to have operations on her jaw and ear and suffers hearing
problems as a result of the attack. Id. at 91.
did not testify, and the defense presented no witnesses.
After an hour and five minutes of deliberation, the jury
returned a guilty verdict. Doc. #14-4 at 134. Hoskins was
sentenced to a twenty-year prison term in this case to run
consecutively with the previous twenty-year sentence he
received for his attack on Taylor. Id. at 138-39.
conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Hoskins
v. State, 186 So.3d 898 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015),
reh'g denied December 8, 2015, cert.
denied March 10, 2016 (Cause No. 2013-KA-01785-COA).
Hoskins did not seek post-conviction relief in State court.
Court's review of Hoskins' claims is governed by the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), because his federal habeas petition
was filed after the statute's effective date. See
Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). The AEDPA prevents
the grant of federal habeas relief on any claim adjudicated
on the merits in state court unless that adjudication (1)
resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established United
States Supreme Court precedent; or (2) resulted in a decision
that was based on an ...