Simmons v. Coupe et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 9/20/2019. (nmf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ALPHONSO SIMMONS,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 16-845-CFC
V.
CLAIRE DEMATTEIS, Commissioner,
Delaware Department of Corrections,
ALAN GRINSTEAD, Bureau Chief, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents. 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
James B. O'Neill, Office of Defense Services for the State of Delaware, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorney for Petitioner.
Brian L. Arban, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington,
Delaware. Counsel for Respondents.
September 20, 2019
Wilmington, Delaware
1Commissioner
Claire DeMatteis has replaced former Commissioner Robert M. Coupe,
an original party to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (d).
~ L r -UNITED S
Pending before the Court is an Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition") filed by Petitioner Alphonso Simmons
(''Petitioner"). (D.I. 2) The State filed an Answer in opposition, to which Petitioner filed
a Reply. (D.I. 12; D.I. 15) For the reasons discussed, the Court will dismiss the Petition
and deny the relief requested.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2013, Petitioner pied guilty to drug dealing and two counts of
possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited ("PDWBPP"). (D.I. 12 at 2) The
Superior Court sentenced Petitioner on January 30, 2014 to a total of thirty-six years of
Level V incarceration, suspended after five years for lower levels of supervision. (D.I. 12
at 2) He did not file a direct appeal.
On May 14, 2014, Delaware's Office of Defense Services ("OPD") filed a motion
for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule
61 motion") on Petitioner's behalf. The Superior Court denied the motion on April 20,
2015, and denied his motion for reargument on June 17, 2015. (D.I. 12 at 2); see State
v. Anderson et al, 2015 WL 2067158 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 20, 2015); State v. Banks,
2015 WL 4400130 (Del. Super. Ct. June 17, 2015). The Delaware Supreme Court
affirmed that decision on December 9, 2015. (D.I. 12 at 2); see Banks v. State, 129
A.3d 881 (Table), 2015 WL 8481972 (Del. Dec. 9, 2015).
On September 21, 2016, the OPD filed a § 2254 Petition on Petitioner's behalf.
Petitioner makes two claims. First, he asserts that his lack of knowledge of an evidence
scandal at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ("OCME") was material to his
decision to plead guilty and, therefore, his guilty plea was involuntary pursuant to Brady
v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). (D.I. 2) Second, he argues that the
Delaware Supreme Court made unreasonable findings of fact during his post-conviction
appeal regarding OCME misconduct. The State filed an Answer asserting that the
Petition should be dismissed as meritless. (D.I. 12) Petitioner filed a Reply arguing that
the Petition warrants habeas relief. (D.I. 15)
A. OCME CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
The relevant information regarding the OCME evidence mishandling is set forth
below:
In February 2014, the Delaware State Police ("DSP") and the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") began an investigation into
criminal misconduct occurring in the Controlled Substances
Unit of the OCME.
The investigation revealed that some drug evidence sent to
the OCME for testing had been stolen by OCME employees
in some cases and was unaccounted for in other
cases. Oversight of the lab had been lacking, and security
procedures had not been followed. One employee was
accused of "drylabbing" (or declaring a test result without
actually conducting a test of the evidence) in several cases.
Although the investigation remains ongoing, to date,
three OCME employees have been suspended (two of those
employees have been criminally indicted), and the Chief
Medical Examiner has been fired.
There is no evidence to suggest that OCME employees
tampered with drug evidence by adding known controlled
substances to the evidence they received for testing in order
to achieve positive results and secure convictions. That is,
there is no evidence that the OCME staff "planted" evidence
to wrongly obtain convictions. Rather, the employees who
stole the evidence did so because it in fact consisted of illegal
narcotics that they could resell or take for personal use.
Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201, 1204-05 (Del. 2015).
2
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEV'J
When a state's highest court has adjudicated a federal habeas claim on the
merits, the federal court must review the claim under the deferential standard contained
in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A claim has been "adjudicated on the merits" for the purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) if the state court decision finally resolves the claim on the basis
of its substance, rather than on a procedural or some other ground. See Thomas v.
Hom, 570 F.3d 105, 115 (3d Cir. 2009). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal
habeas relief may only be granted if the state court's decision was "contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined
by the Supreme Court of the United States," or the state court's decision was an
unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence adduced in the trial.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,412
(2000); Appel v. Hom, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2001 ). This deferential standard of§
2254(d) applies even ''when a state court's order is unaccompanied by an opinion
explaining the reasons relief has been denied"; as recently explained by the Supreme
Court, "it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in
the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary."
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98-100 (2011).
Finally, a federal court must presume that the state court's determinations of
factual issues are correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Appel, 250 F.3d at
210. This presumption of correctness applies to both explicit and implicit findings of
fact, and is only rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280,286 (3d Cir. 2000);
3
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 341 (2003) (stating that the clear and convincing
standard in § 2254(e)(1) applies to factual issues, whereas the unreasonable
application standard of§ 2254(d)(2) applies to factual decisions).
Ill.
DISCUSSION
A.
Claim One: Unreasonable Application of Brady v. United States.
In his introduction to Claim One, Petitioner asserts that:
The Delaware Supreme Court unreasonably failed to identify
and/or apply the overarching federal law governing the
voluntariness of a guilty plea. Nowhere in its decision did the
court even cite to any federal law- constitutional or otherwise.
Accordingly, it made no findings of fact specific to [Petitioner's]
case and conducted no voluntariness analysis. Instead, the
court simply cited to its prior decisions, notably Aricidiacono
v. State, and concluded that [Petitioner] was not entitled to
relief because he did not plead any basis to avoid the effect
of his voluntary and knowing plea of guilty and he has not
suffered an unjust conviction. To the extent the court's
decision could be construed as incorporating the law and facts
from Aricidiacono by reference, it incorporated an
unreasonable application of well-established Federal law.
(D.I. 7 at 7)
The Court rejects Petitioner's argument that the Delaware Supreme Court
/
unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by citing to Aricidiacono
v. State,
125 A.3d 677 (Del. 2015) rather than directly to Brady v. United States. The Delaware
Supreme Court's Aricidiacono decision properly cites and articulates Brady v. United
States' standard for determining the voluntariness of guilty pleas. See Aricidiacono, 125
A.3d at 679. By citing and applying Aricidiacono when denying Petitioner's Brady v.
United States argument, the Delaware Supreme Court appropriately relied on Delaware
caselaw articulating the proper federal standard applicable to Petitioner's Claim. See
Fahy v. Hom, 516 F.3d 169, 196 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding that Supreme Court of
4
Pennsylvania's decision was not "contrary to" clearly established federal law because it
appropriately relied on its own state court cases which articulated the proper standard
derived from Supreme Court precedent). Thus, the issue as to whether the Delaware
Supreme Court unreasonably applied Brady v. United States in holding that Petitioner's
plea was not rendered involuntary by his lack of knowledge about, and the State's late
disclosure of, the OCME misconduct is properly before the Court.
In Claim One, Petitioner contends that the Delaware Supreme Court did not
comply with Brady v. State's requirement that "all of the relevant circumstances
surrounding" the plea must be considered when assessing if his plea was voluntary.
(D.I. 7 at 20) He asserts that the Delaware Supreme Court erred by focusing on
Petitioner's admission of guilt during the plea colloquy, contending that a "defendant's
recitals on the record at the time he entered his guilty plea do not foreclose proof at a
later time that those themselves were involuntary," and "the assessment of such proof
does not involve any question of guilt or innocence." (D.I. 7 at 20) Specifically, he
alleges that,
[i]n addition to the OCME misconduct itself, the State's failure
to disclose that misconduct can render an otherwise voluntary
plea involuntary. Each individual prosecutor has a duty to
learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the
government's behalf in the case, including police. This duty
extends beyond police to any investigating agency. The state
court previously found and the State conceded that evidence
of the misconduct at [the] OCME was Brady v. Maryland
material2 in that it was relevant to impeachment. Even though,
2Petitioner's
instant argument that the State's assertion it had fulfilled its Brady v.
Maryland obligation constituted an affirmative misrepresentation for Brady v. United
States purposes is a twist on the typical Brady v. Maryland argument. In many of the
Rule 61 proceedings involving.the OCME misconduct initially filed in the Delaware state
courts, one of the primary arguments was that the State violated the defendants' rights
under Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the ongoing misconduct at the OCME at
5
through no fault of the prosecutor, this evidence was not
provided to [Petitioner], the State represented to him that it
had satisfied its Brady obligation. Accordingly, the deceitful
nature of the misconduct by a member of the prosecution
team led to the prosecutor's misrepresentation to [Petitioner].
He was entitled to presume that prosecutors had discharged
their official duties because they told him they had. Thus,
assuming, arguendo, the State does not generally have a
constitutional obligation to provide Brady material prior to the
guilty plea, this Court must recognize, as does the United
States Supreme Court, that the State does have a
constitutional obligation not to mislead a defendant.
(D.I. 7 at 30-31)
Citing to the First Circuit's decision in Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1 st
Cir. 2006), Petitioner asserts that the OCME misconduct rendered his guilty plea
involuntary because it was egregious, antedated Petitioner's plea, is imputed to the
State, and was material to Petitioner's choice to plead guilty. 3 (D.I. 7 at 28-34) In
Ferrara, the First Circuit held that a defendant may "collaterally attack his sentence on
_the ground that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary if his claim is based on
the time their cases were pending. See State v. Miller, 2017 1969780, at *6 (Del.
Super. Ct. May 11, 2017). The Delaware courts rejected this argument pursuant to
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622,629 (2002), explaining that the State does not have
a constitutional requirement to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to a
defendant entering a guilty plea. See Miller, 2017 WL 1969780, at *7. The Court
presumes that Petitioner's acknowledgement in this proceeding that the "State does not
generally have a constitutional obligation to provide Brady material prior to the guilty
plea" is due to the Delaware state courts' rejection of his "typical" Brady v. Maryland
argument.
3The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has applied Ferrara's
two-step approach in numerous proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 where the
movants sought to revoke their guilty pleas based on the misconduct of forensic
scientist Annie Dookhan. In those cases, the movants generally sought to vacate their
sentences by arguing that their guilty pleas were obtained in violation "of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because of the government's failure to disclose
the full range of Dookhan's malfeasance." United States v. Wilkins, 943 F. Supp. 2d
248, 254 (D. Mass. 2013).
6
evidence not available to him at the time of the plea," without distinguishing between
evidence that is newly discovered and evidence that was withheld as a result of a Brady
v. Maryland violation. Ferrara, 456 F.3d at 289. The Ferrara Court established a two-
pronged test for determining if a defendant has a right to rescind his guilty plea because
of newly discovered government misconduct: (1) egregious impermissible government
misconduct antedated the entry of the plea; and (2) the misconduct influenced the
defendant's decision to plead guilty or, in in other words, the misconduct was material to
that choice. See Ferrara, 456 F.3d at 290.
Petitioner presented essentially the same argument to the Delaware Supreme
Court on post-conviction appeal, which denied the argument as meritless. Since the
Delaware Supreme Court in Petitioner's case relied on Aricidiacono when it denied
instant argument, the Court will also reference Aricidiacono when analyzing the
Delaware Supreme Court's decision under§ 2254(d)(1 ).
In Aricidiacono, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the defendants' due
process argument that their pleas were involuntary under Brady v. United States,
explaining:
[T]he defendants here submitted no evidence to suggest a
natural inference that any misconduct at the OCME (or lack of
knowledge of that conduct) coerced or otherwise induced the
defendants to falsely plead guilty.
Tellingly, the defendants do not in any way argue that the
State knew about the problems at the OCME when they pied
guilty and failed to disclose those problems; that the State
engaged in any coercive or improper behavior to procure their
pleas; or that any of the defendants in fact gave a false
admission. The last point bears reiteration: not one of the
defendants argues that she was not in fact not in possession
of illegal narcotics and that her plea was false. Rather the
suggestion is solely that the defendants would not have pied
7
or would have gotten better deals if they had known of the
problems at the OCME.
Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 679. The Aricidiacono Court also rejected the argument-
which was premised on the First Circuit's decision in Ferrara - that the defendants'
pleas were rendered involuntary due to the "egregious" OCME misconduct that
antedated their pleas, because none of the defendants contended that they ''were not in
fact telling the truth when they freely admitted their factual guilt." Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d
at 680. Describing Ferrara's "egregious misconduct" rationale as a "gloss on Brady v.
United States," the Delaware Supreme Court refused to "embrace" the defendants'
"egregious misconduct" argument. Nevertheless, the Delaware Supreme Court noted
that "even if there was conduct at the OCME that could be said to be egregious, we
have determined, in accordance with our prior reasoning in Ira Brown v. State and
Anzara Brown v. State, that this conduct did not materially affect any of the pleas."
Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 680 n. 24. The Delaware Supreme Court opined:
Put simply, the defendants were unable to identify any
equitable reason why they should not be held to their pleas.
We have no doubt that the defendants and their counsel wish
they had known of the problems at the OCME when the
defendants voluntarily admitted their guilt and used their
acceptance of responsibility to get charges dropped and
secure sentences far below the statutory maximum. It may
be the case that knowing about the OCME problems would
have given the defendants more bargaining leverage. But
that possibility is not a basis for concluding that the
defendants were unfairly convicted after a voluntary plea.
Each of these defendants had every opportunity to claim that
she was in fact not guilty, to contend that she did not possess
illegal drugs, and to go to trial. To this day, not one advances
the contention that she was in fact innocent.
Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 681.
8
With respect to the Court's § 2254(d)(1) inquiry in this case, both Parties
acknowledge that the clearly established federal law governing the voluntariness of
guilty plea claims is the standard articulated in Brady v. United States. Petitioner,
however, argues that the Court should incorporate Ferrara's approach and consider
undisclosed "egregious government misconduct" preceding the entry of a guilty plea as
a relevant circumstance under Brady v. United States, namely, a misrepresentation that
induced Petitioner to enter a guilty plea. The Court is not persuaded. First, Ferrara
does not constitute "clearly established federal law" because it is not a decision issued
by the United States Supreme Court. Second, the Court has not uncovered any
Supreme Court precedent adopting Ferrara's rationale equating "egregious undisclosed
government misconduct" with a misrepresentation capable of rendering a guilty plea
involuntary. 4 And finally, the Court has not found any Third Circuit case law mirroring
Ferrara's holding or explicitly adopting its reasoning. Indeed, at least one federal district
court has criticized Ferrara as an overly "expansive interpretation of the relevant
4 In
addition to the reasons set forth in the text of the Opinion, the following three
circumstances demonstrate why the Ferrara decision has limited applicability in this
particular context. First, the defendant in Ferrara asserted he was actually innocent of
the charge to which he pied guilty; Petitioner has not asserted his factual innocence.
See Ferrara, 384 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 (D. Mass. 2005). Second, the prosecutor in
Ferrara was actively involved in witness manipulation and suppression of affirmative
evidence directly related to the defendant's innocence; here, the State was not aware of
the OCME misconduct when Petitioner entered his plea and did not actively suppress
that information. See Ferrara, 456 F.3d at 291 (the "outrageous conduct" in Ferrara
consisted of manipulating a witness, and then "represent[ing] to the court and the
defense that the witness was going to confirm [a] story" inculpating the defendant in a
murder plot, when in fact the witness had provided the government with affirmative
evidence of the defendant's innocence.). Finally, the evidence in Ferrara was
exculpatory because it directly implicated the defendant's innocence; as explained in
the text of the Opinion, the OCME misconduct constituted impeachment evidence. See
Ferrara, 456 F.3d at 292.
9
language from Brady v. United State." 5 Hasbajrami v. United States, 2014 WL
4954596, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2014).
Even if Petitioner's argument is not considered to be premised specifically on
Ferrara, but rather, on general due process principles established in Brady v. United
States, he is not entitled to habeas relief. In Brady v. United States, the Supreme Court
determined that a guilty plea is not rendered invalid merely because it is entered to
avoid a harsher sentence, explaining:
A plea of guilty entered by one fully aware of the direct
consequences, including the actual value of any commitments
made to him by the court, prosecutor, or his own counsel,
must stand unless induced by threats (or promises to
discontinue improper harassment),
misrepresentation
(including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), or perhaps by
promises that are by their nature improper as having no
proper relationship to the prosecutor's business (e.g. bribes).
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 755; see also Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258,
267 (1973) (explaining a defendant may challenge a conviction based on a guilty plea
on the ground that the plea was not "voluntary and intelligent."); Hill v. Lockhart, 4 74
U.S. 52, 56 (1985) (noting that the "longstanding test for determining the validity of a
guilty plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the
alternative choices of action open to the defendant."). The Supreme Court has noted
that a plea is involuntary if it is induced by "actual or threatened physical harm or by
mental coercion overbearing the will of the defendant," or if the defendant is so
"gripped" by fear or hope of leniency that he cannot "rationally weigh the advantages of
5Interestingly,
"[o]f the federal courts to have addressed post-conviction petitions under
Brady and Ferrara in the wake of the Dookhan scandal, not one has vacated a guilty
plea." Castro v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 3d 268, 274 (D. Mass. 2017).
10
going to trial against the advantages of pleading guilty." Brady v. United States, 397
U.S. at 750 However, a plea is not involuntary "whenever motivated by the defendant's
desire to accept the certainty or probability of a lesser penalty rather than face a wider
range of possibilities extending from acquittal to conviction and a higher penalty
authorized by law for the crime charged." Id. at 751.
Significantly, "the voluntariness of [a defendant's] plea can be determined only by
considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it." Brady v. United States,
397 U.S. at 749. While the Supreme Court has not articulated a list of the "relevant
circumstances" to be considered when assessing the voluntariness of a plea, the
Supreme Court has noted that a plea is not unintelligent just because later events prove
that going to trial may have been a wiser choice:
Often the decision to plead guilty is heavily influenced by the
defendant's appraisal of the prosecution's case against him
and by the apparent likelihood of securing leniency should a
guilty plea be offered and accepted. Considerations like these
frequently present imponderable questions for which there are
no certain answers; judgments may be made that in the light
of later events seem improvident, although they were
perfectly sensible at the time. The rule that a plea must be
intelligently made to be valid does not require that a plea be
vulnerable to later attack if the defendant did not correctly
assess every relevant factor entering into his decision. A
defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea merely because
he discovers long after the plea has been accepted that his
calculus misapprehended the quality of the State's case or the
likely penalties attached to alternative courses of action. More
particularly, absent misrepresentation or other impermissible
conduct by state agents, a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently
made in the light of the then applicable law does not become
vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the
plea rested on a faulty premise.
11
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 756-57. In McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759,
769-70 (1970), the Court reaffirmed this principle while underscoring the inherent risk of
entering a guilty plea:
[T]he decision to plead guilty before the evidence is in
frequently involves the making of difficult judgments. All the
pertinent facts normally cannot be known unless witnesses
are examined and cross-examined in court. Even then the
truth will often be in dispute. In the face of unavoidable
uncertainty, the defendant and his counsel must make their
best judgment as to the weight of the State's case ... Waiving
trial entails the inherent risk that the good-faith evaluations of
a reasonably competent attorney will turn out to be mistaken
either as to the facts or as to what a court's judgment might
be on given facts.
The Court has also advised that
[t]he rule that. a plea must be intelligently made to be valid
does not require that plea be vulnerable to later attack if the
defendant did not correctly assess every relevant factor
entering into his decision~ A defendant is not entitled to
withdraw his plea merely because he discovers long after the
plea has been accepted that his calculus misapprehended the
quality of the State's case. ·
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 757. In other words, "the Constitution, in respect to
a defendant's awareness of relevant circumstances, does not require complete
knowledge of the relevant circumstances, but permits a court to accept a guilty plea ...
despite various forms of misapprehension under which a defendant might labor."
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 630 (2002) (emphasis added).
Finally, it is well-settled that a petitioner challenging the voluntary nature of his
plea on habeas review faces a heavy burden. See Zilich v. Reid, 36 F.3d 317, 320 (3d
Cir. 1994). The "representations of the defendant, his lawyer, and the prosecutor at [a
plea] hearing, as well as any findings made by the judge accepting the plea, constitute a
12
formidable barrier in any subsequent collateral proceedings. Solemn declarations in
open court carry a strong presumption of verity. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 7374 (1977). Thus, there is
no requirement in the Constitution that defendant must be
permitted to disown his solemn admissions in open court that
he committed the act with which he is charged simply because
it later develops that the state would have had a weaker case
than the defendant had thought or that he maximum penalty
then assumed applicable has been held inapplicable in
subsequent judicial decisions.
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 757.
After reviewing the Delaware Supreme Court's decision within the
aforementioned legal framework, the Court concludes that the Delaware Supreme Court
did not unreasonably apply Brady v. United States and its progeny by holding that
Petitioner's lack of knowledge about the OCME misconduct did not render his guilty
plea involuntary. 6 Instead, the Delaware Supreme Court considered the "relevant
circumstances" required by Brady v. United States when assessing the voluntariness of
Petitioner's plea. For instance, the Delaware Supreme Court considered the substantial
benefit Petitioner derived from pleading guilty, as demonstrated by its statement that,
"[a]s to [the other] defendants, the State notes the substantial benefits the defendants
obtained by the plea process, with most defendants obtaining a plea to a greatly
6 In
this proceeding, Petitioner states that "his present claim does not contradict the
statements he made during his plea colloquy," and he also states that he is not
contradicting "any assertion made during the plea colloquy that the attorney did so
advise him [of the rights he was waiving by entering the plea]." (D.I. 7 at 21 & n. 82)
Given Petitioner's concession, the Court accepts as correct the Delaware Supreme
Court's determination that Petitioner freely admitted his guilt during the plea colloquy,
thereby rendering an independent analysis of Petitioner's plea colloquy under
Blackledge unnecessary.
13
reduced set of charges and to sentences far below that which they could have received
had they gone to trial." Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 680. Here, Petitioner was charged
with drug dealing, aggravated possession, three counts of illegal possession of a
controlled substance, two counts of PDWBPP, possession of drug paraphernalia,
possession of a firearm or firearm ammunition by a person prohibited, and possession
of a weapon with a removed, obliterated or altered serial number. (D.I. 12 at 1) In
exchange for pleading guilty, the State dropped the other eight charges against him,
which reduced the maximum sentence he faced. (D.I. 12 at 3)
Additionally, the Delaware Supreme Court stated it was "adher[ing]" to its prior
decision in Brewer v. State in rejecting Petitioner's argument7 and, in Brewer, the
Delaware Supreme Court opined:
In his guilty plea colloquy, Brewer affirmed that he was "guilty
of possession with intent to deliver cocaine." At no point has
Brewer argued that he was actually innocent. As we
emphasized in affirming the denial of Brewer's first motion for
postconviction relief, Brewer's guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary. Brewer is therefore bound by the statements he
made to the Superior Court before his plea was accepted and
he is prevented from reopening his case to make claims that
do not address his guilty and involve impeachment evidence
that would only be relevant at trial.
Brewer's reliance on decisions based upon language in Brady
v. United States does not change this result. In Brady, the
United States Supreme Court held that "a voluntary plea of
guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable law
does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions
indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise." The Court
clarified that "[o]f course, the agents of the State may not
produce a plea by actual or threatened physical harm or by
mental coercion overbearing the will of the defendant." As
long as the defendant can "with the help of counsel,
rationally weigh the advantages of going to trial against
7Aricidiacono,
125 A.3d at 680.
14
the advantages of pleading guilty," the Court determined
there is no constitutional cause for concern.
Brewer has failed to allege any improper coercion that
undermined his ability to rationally weigh the advantages
or disadvantages of trial. Nothing in Brewer's opening
brief suggests that he was strong-armed by State agents.
Instead, Brewer claims that the positive OCME drug
results were a significant factor in his decision to plead
guilty and that he would not have pied guilty if he had
known of the misconduct at the OCME. Brewer fails,
however, to tie any of the OCME misconduct to the facts
of his case. Brewer has not shown that his guilty plea
was the result of improper coercion and does not claim
to be actually innocent.
Brewerv. State, 119 A.3d 42 (Table), 2015 WL 4606541, at *2-*3 (Del. July 30, 2015)
(emphasis added).
The Brewer excerpt demonstrates that, as clearly mandated by Brady v. United
States, the Delaware Supreme Court considered if Petitioner entered the plea upon the
advice of competent counsel. The excerpt also demonstrates that the Delaware
Supreme Court considered, and concluded, that the unrelated general OCME
misconduct did not amount to improper coercion and did not affect Petitioner's
awareness of the direct consequences of pleading guilty. The Delaware Supreme Court
explained that "the defendants here submitted no evidence to suggest a natural
inference that any misconduct at the OCME (or lack of knowledge of that conduct)
coerced or otherwise induced the defendants to falsely plead guilty." Aricidiacono, 125
A.3d at 679. As the Court explains in its discussion regarding Claim Two, the Delaware
Supreme Court reasonably determined the facts by concluding that Petitioner failed to
demonstrate that his case was tainted by the OCME misconduct. Consequently, the
Delaware Supreme Court's refusal to issue a per se determination that the general
15
existence of OCME misconduct was sufficient to render Petitioner's guilty plea
involuntary, without proof that there was any actual OCME misconduct with respect to
the evidence in Petitioner's case, did not violate Brady v. United States.
Similarly, the Delaware Supreme Court did not violate Brady v. United States by
placing great significance on Petitioner's admission of guilt during the plea colloquy,
because it considered this fact in conjunction with Petitioner's failure to assert his
factual innocence during or after the plea. An admission of guilt "is entitled to significant
(albeit not dispositive) weight when, as now, [a defendant] seeks to vacate that plea
through a collateral attack." Wilkins, 754 F.3d at 30. "Such an admission is especially
compelling because [he] neither attempts to explain it away nor makes any assertion of
factual innocence." Id. Placing significance on Petitioner's admission of guilt was also
appropriate since he gave a post-Miranda statement that "he knew the guns were in his
bedroom and
Dconfessed that he sold drugs for money because he did not have a job."
(D.I. 12 at 3)
Given Petitioner's failure to demonstrate a link between the misconduct and his
case, Petitioner's unawareness of the unrelated general OCME misconduct only
amounted to one of the "various forms of misapprehension under which a defendant
might labor."8 See Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 630. As Petitioner concedes, and the body of
8
Indeed, Petitioner could have gone to trial, or sought permission to enter a plea of nolo
contendere, which would have permitted him to accept punishment for the charged
offense without admitting his guilt. See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11 (2)(b) ("A defendant
may plead nolo contendere or guilty without admitting the essential facts constituting the
offense charged with the consent of the court. Such a plea shall be accepted by the
court only after due consideration of the views of the parties and the interest of the
public in the effective administration of justice."); see also North Carolina v. Alford, 400
U.S. 25, 37 (1970) ("[W]hile most pleas of guilty consist of both a waiver of trial and an
express admission of guilt, the later element is. not a constitutional requisite to the
16
Delaware caselaw concerning the OCME misconduct demonstrates, the OCME
investigation constitutes impeachment evidence that would only be useful if Petitioner
had decided to go to trial. See Ira Brown, 108 A.3d at 1206-07. In Ruiz, the United
States Supreme Court specifically held that the Government is not constitutionally
required to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement
with a criminal defendant. See Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 633. The Ruiz Court explained:
It is particularly difficult to characterize impeachment
information as critical information of which the defendant must
always be aware prior to pleading guilty given the random way
in which such information may, or may not, help a particular
defendant. The degree of help that impeachment information
can provide will depend upon the defendant's own
independent knowledge of the prosecution's potential case a matter that the Constitution does not require prosecutors to
disclose.
Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 629. The Supreme Court also recently reaffirmed that "a guilty plea
makes [case-related constitutional defects that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty
plea] irrelevant to the constitutional validity of the conviction," "[b]ecause the defendant
has admitted the charges against him." Class v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 798, 805-06
(2018).
As suggested by the aforementioned jurisprudence, if unknown non-exculpatory
conduct at the OCME was not material to a defendant's decision to plead guilty, that
same non-exculpatory misconduct cannot provide a basis for rendering a defendant's
imposition of criminal penalty. An individual accused of crime may voluntarily,
knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if
he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.").
Petitioner did not do so, and the Delaware Superior Court was entitled to rely on his
solemn admission that he committed the acts alleged by the State in rejecting his
argument that the OCME misconduct rendered his plea involuntary. See Brady v.
United States, 397 U.S. at 757.
17
counseled decision to enter a guilty plea involuntary, especially when that defendant
participated in a plea colloquy in open court, freely acknowledged his guilt, and has not
asserted his factual innocence. Although knowledge of the OCME misconduct would
have provided Petitioner with "more bargaining leverage," it cannot be said that the lack
of that knowledge rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Rather, Petitioner's argument
amounts only to a miscalculation of the strength of the State's case.
In sum, the Court concludes that the Delaware Supreme Court did not
unreasonably apply Brady v. United States in holding that Petitioner's guilty plea was
not rendered involuntary because of Petitioner's lack of knowledge about the OCME
misconduct. Accordingly, the Court will deny Claim One for failing to satisfy§
2254(d)(1 ). 9
8. Claim Two: Unreasonable Finding of Fact
In affirming the Superior Court's denial of Petitioner's Rule 61 motion, the
Delaware Supreme Court made the following observations about the misconduct at the
OCME:
In 2014 an investigation by the Delaware State Police and the
Department of Justice revealed that some OCME employees
had stolen drug evidence stored at the OCME due in large
part to flawed oversight and security.
To date, those
problems, although including substantial evidence of
sloppiness and allegations of "drylabbing, do not in any way
involve evidence-planting. To the contrary, much of the
11
9Given
the Court's conclusion that Petitioner's lack of knowledge about the OCME
misconduct did not "induce" him to plead guilty, the Court need not address: (1) whether
misconduct engaged in by forensic lab employees and, in particular, the OCME
misconduct in this case, can be imputed to the State; and (2) whether the State
committed an affirmative misrepresentation when it informed Petitioner it had satisfied
its Brady v. Maryland obligations.
18
uncovered misconduct seemed to be inspired by the reality
that the evidence seized from defendants in fact involved
illegal narcotics, and the temptation this provided to certain
employees to steal some of that evidence for their personal
use and for resale.
Those problems have now been
discussed in several judicial opinions, and in publicly available
investigative reports.
Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 677-78. The Delaware Supreme Court held that "the poor
evidence-handling practices at the OCME, however regrettable," did not entitle
defendants who had freely admitted their guilt when pleading guilty to relief. Id. at 67879. The Delaware Supreme Court then stated, even if it assumed that the conduct at
the OCME amounted to egregious government misconduct, "this conduct did not
materially affect any of the pleas." Id. at 680 n.24
In Claim Two, Petitioner contends that the Delaware Supreme Court
"incorporated unreasonable [factual] findings" from Aricidiacono that "minimized the
OCME misconduct and belittled the unrealistic burden of proof it placed on the
petitioners." (D.I. 7 at 24) Petitioner's true complaint appears to be what he terms "the
state court's misguided fixation on [Petitioner's] admission of guilt rather than on the
voluntariness of that admission." (D.I. 7 at 21) His statement that "[i]t is inconceivable
that the facts which the state court ignored, belittled or misconstrued are not relevant to
a finding that, but for the State's failure to disclose evidence of government misconduct,
there is a reasonable probability that [Petitioner] would not have pied guilty" (D.I. 15 at
9) also appears to challenge the Delaware Supreme Court's refusal to characterize the
OCME misconduct as "egregious undisclosed government misconduct" in its Brady v.
United States analysis. To the extent this portrayal is an accurate summary of
Petitioner's argument in Claim Two, the Court has already rejected the argument in its
19
discussion of Claim One. Moreover, this argument fails for the simple reason that the
Delaware court's reasonable application of federal law rendered unnecessary any need
to delve further into OCME employee misconduct or the integrity of the drug evidence in
case.
Even if Petitioner's factual challenge is more than a rehashing of Claim One, it is
unavailing. Petitioner appears to be dissatisfied with the state courts' description of the
specific instances of OCME misconduct, as indicated in his chart depicting "State
Court's Unreasonable Findings" versus "Actual Facts." (D.I. 7 at 25-28) He asserts that
the state courts' findings "either contradicted or understated significant facts in the
record." (P.I. 7 at 25) In short, he appears to contend that the Delaware Supreme
Court unreasonably determined there was an insufficient link between the OCME
misconduct and his case. (D.I. 7 at 23)
Since Claim Two challenges the factual basis of the Delaware Supreme Court's
decision, the relevant inquiry is whether that decision was "based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). In making this determination, the Court must
presume that the Delaware Supreme Court's factual findings are correct unless rebutted
by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1 ).
After reviewing Petitioner's argument in context with the record, the Court
concludes that Petitioner has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence rebutting
the Delaware Supreme Court's factual determination that Petitioner failed to
demonstrate a sufficient link between the general OCME misconduct and his case.
20
Theresa Moore was the chemist who tested the drugs in this case. Petitioner concedes
that the there is no evidence that Moore engaged in misconduct, but asserts that her
credibility was compromised because "she was on the list of potential witnesses in the
Daneshgar case who had credibility issues." (D.I. 7 at 16, 33) Additionally, the police
field tested all the seized suspected crack and powder cocaine, which tested positive for
cocaine, and Petitioner gave a post-Miranda statement confessing that he sold drugs for
money and that he abused cocaine. (D.I. 12 at 3) Considering all of these
circumstances together with Petitioner's failure to assert his factual innocence, the
Court cannot conclude that the Delaware Supreme Court unreasonably determined the
facts by holding that the existence of overall misconduct at the OCME was insufficient to
establish that Petitioner's case was tainted by the same misconduct.
As explained by the Superior Court in State v. Irwin, just one of the over 700
Delaware post-conviction cases involving the OCME misconduct, and relied on by the
Aricidiacono Court: 10
To the extent that there are discrepancies between the drugs
seized from a defendant and those tested by the lab, the
individual possibly responsible for that conduct has not been
identified. [] [A]s best the Court can ascertain, and the parties
have not provided evidence to the contrary, none of the cases
in other jurisdictions that have led to the investigation of a
particular crime lab have ever resulted in all of the evidence
being found unreliable and inadmissible simply because that
evidence was stored or tested at the lab that has been
compromised.
*
*
*
1°Citing
Irwin, the Aricidiacono Court stated that, "[i]n our prior decisions, we found that
when defendants freely admitted their guilt by admitting that they possessed illegal
narcotics, their lack of knowledge that the OCME's evidence-handling practices were
seriously flawed and that some OCME employees had engaged in malfeasance, did
not invalidate their pleas." Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 678-78.
21
There is no evidence to date to suggest that proper testing of
drugs submitted did not occur, or that the chemists were
submitting false reports, or that critical evidence was withheld
by the lab, or that there was any misconduct by the police in
violation of a defendant's rights. When the smoke clears, what
we have is a lab that suffered from systematic failures in
protocol resulting in evidence being stolen, for either sale or
personal consumption, and in some instances replaced with
other drugs. While the defendants urge this Court to find any
evidence stored at the OCME drug lab is ipso facto unreliable
due to a lapse in management and protocol, the Court finds
that such a blanket ruling is inappropriate.
State v. Irwin, 2014 WL 6734821, at *7, *9 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 17, 2014). Accordingly,
the Court will deny Claim Two.
C. Request for Evidentiary Hearing
Petitioner "requests that this Court conduct an evidentiary hearing and allow full
briefing on his claim." (D.I. 2 at 17; D.I. 7 at 34) Additionally, Petitioner asks that, in the
event the Court denies him habeas relief, it "order the State to retest evidence; order the
State to produce evidence envelopes, all chain of custody records and any other
discovery related to the evidence and its handling." (D.I. 5 at 35) Having determined
that the instant Petition does not warrant relief under§ 2254(d)(1) and (2), the Court will
deny Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and additional discovery. See
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465,474 (2007) ("Because the deferential standards
prescribed by§ 2254 control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must take
into those standards in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.").
IV.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A district court issuing a final order denying a § 2254 petition must also decide
whether to issue a certificate of appealability. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011 ). A
certificate of appealability is appropriate when a petitioner makes a "substantial showing
22
of the denial of a constitutional right" by demonstrating "that reasonable jurists would
find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The Court has concluded that Petitioner's habeas claims do not warrant relief. In
the Court's view, reasonable jurists would not find its assessment of Petitioner's
constitutional claims to be debatable. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Petitioner's Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED without an evidentiary hearing. An
appropriate Order will be entered.
23
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?