Hollman v. Wilson, 97-2062

• Citation: 158 F.3d 177
• Decision Date: 11 September 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-2062,97-2062
• Parties: Chester HOLLMAN, Appellant v. Harry E. WILSON, Superintendent, Retreat; The District Attorney Of The County Of Philadelphia; The Attorney General Of The State Of Pennsylvania.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Page 177

158 F.3d 177

Chester HOLLMAN, Appellant v. Harry E. WILSON, Superintendent, Retreat; The District Attorney Of The County Of Philadelphia; The Attorney General Of The State Of Pennsylvania.

No. 97-2062.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 9, 1998

Decided Sept. 11, 1998.

Norris E. Gelman [ARGUED], Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.

Donna G. Zucker [ARGUED], Philadelphia, PA, Counsel for Appellees.

Before: STAPLETON, COWEN and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Chester Hollman, appeals from the district court's denial of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), undermines his murder conviction. For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm.

Factual Background

On May 4, 1993, a Common Pleas Court jury in Philadelphia convicted Hollman of second-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, robbery, and criminal conspiracy for his involvement in the shooting death of Tae Jung Ho, a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania. Ho had been walking with his girlfriend at 22nd and Sansom Streets in Philadelphia in the early morning of August 20, 1991, when the two were approached by Hollman and another man, who pushed Ho to the ground. Hollman restrained Ho by sitting on his legs while the other assailant shot Ho in the chest; he was killed instantly. Hollman then robbed Ho and the two men ran back to their vehicle, a white Chevy Blazer.

The evidence against Hollman included the testimony of Deirdre Jones who had been traveling with Hollman in the car that night. She testified that she had been driving around Center City with Hollman and two other individuals, a man and a woman. The two men stopped the car and discussed their plan to rob someone; Jones was instructed to act as a "lookout." The two men then left the car. Jones heard a gunshot and the two men jumped back into the vehicle and sped away. Shortly thereafter, the two other passengers exited the car and Hollman and Jones continued driving.

Two other witnesses near the scene testified that they heard a gunshot and saw two men jumping into a white Chevy Blazer which contained two passengers. One witness, a taxi driver, followed the car and was able to read the first few letters of the license plate, "YZA" before losing the car in traffic. The driver reported what he had seen and gave a description of the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, a Philadelphia police officer stopped the car driven by Hollman within blocks of the crime scene. It matched the taxi driver's description and bore a license plate which started with the letters "YZA." As the officer questioned and searched Hollman he observed that Hollman was perspiring heavily and seemed highly agitated.

At trial, the only eyewitness who claimed to have actually seen the crime in progress was Andre Dawkins. Dawkins was standing outside a convenience store across the street from the crime scene. He testified that he saw Hollman and another man push Ho to the ground and heard Ho plead for his life and the life of his girlfriend. Dawkins claimed to have had a good view of Hollman running back to the car after the shooting and identified Hollman as the man who had restrained Ho while the other assailant shot him.

During his interview with the police, Hollman denied everything. However, when confronted with the statement of Deirdre Jones, he blurted out, "I told that bitch to keep her mouth shut, shit." During a search of Hollman's residence, a .38 caliber revolver was discovered. An expert testified at trial that the bullet that killed Ho could have come from that gun.

The jury convicted Hollman of second degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, robbery, and criminal conspiracy.

After the trial, Hollman's counsel learned that, due to an apparent clerical error, the prosecution had not had, and thus did not provide him with, a full and accurate report of Dawkins's criminal history. This error was not detected until Dawkins was arrested for robbery several months after the Hollman trial. Dawkins had accidently been given two different identification numbers in the police computer system. The record retrieved by the government and provided to defense counsel contained a recent arrest for burglary, a prior arrest under the alias John Johnson, and several open bench warrants. However, it did not contain significant aspects of Dawkins's criminal history including robbery and conspiracy convictions, and a prior conviction for filing a false report of incriminating evidence with the authorities.

Hollman moved for a new trial in state court arguing, inter alia, that the prosecution's failure to turn over this impeachment evidence constituted a Brady violation. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). ¹ Hollman contended that had the information been available during trial, the credibility of Dawkins could have been impeached using his prior crimen falsi convictions. The trial court held a post-trial hearing on the matter and then denied the motion, sentencing Hollman to life in prison. The Superior Court rejected the same argument and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied an allowance of appeal. Hollman then filed this § 2254 motion in the district court on March 2, 1997. The district court, adopting the opinion of the Magistrate Judge, denied relief finding that the failure to produce Dawkins's entire criminal record did not warrant a new trial under Brady. As the district court granted a certificate of appealability, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We likewise deny Hollman's habeas petition.

Standard of Review

We exercise plenary review over a district court's legal conclusions made in reviewing a § 2254 petition. See Orban v. Vaughn, 123 F.3d 727, 729 (3d Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 717, 139 L.Ed.2d 657, 658 (1998). Because Hollman filed his petition before the district court on March 24, 1997, it is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") which became effective on April 24, 1996. The AEDPA creates the following standard that federal courts must apply when reviewing a habeas petition brought by a state prisoner:

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 presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The issue raised in Hollman's habeas petition was clearly adjudicated on the merits in state court. Because the question before us is one of law we examine the state court's decision to determine if it was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law." As we find that the state court's decision on Hollman's petition was not deficient under this standard, we will deny habeas relief.

We recognize that we have not yet defined the contours of the new AEDPA standard. See Berryman v. Morton, 100 F.3d 1089, 1103 (3d Cir.1996) (stating that "we have not determined the extent of the deference that federal habeas courts must afford to the legal or the factual determinations made by state courts"). ² However, we need not do so here, because the Pennsylvania Superior Court did not render a decision contrary to clearly established federal law under any reading of the relevant standard.

State Court's Determination

When the error regarding Dawkins's criminal identification numbers was discovered, Hollman moved for a new trial on the basis of the claimed Brady violation and argued that his counsel had been ineffective in failing to produce other evidence to impeach Dawkins. The trial court conducted a post-trial hearing. The court determined that the failure to produce Dawkins's entire criminal record did not constitute a Brady violation and that even if defense counsel had known about the earlier convictions, the result of the trial would not have been different. The trial court thus concluded that a new trial was not warranted. Hollman appealed to the Superior Court which determined that the mistakenly omitted evidence did not constitute a Brady violation, that Hollman was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence, and that the court's charge did not deny Hollman due process. ³ The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied an allowance of appeal on April 1, 1996. As Hollman has exhausted his state court remedies with respect to the issues raised in this appeal, we can review his claim brought under § 2254.

Discussion

In Brady, the Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment." 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. A new trial will be granted for a Brady violation only if the defendant can demonstrate both that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, and that the evidence was material, in that the defendant did not receive a fair trial because of its absence. See United States v. Pelullo, 105 F.3d 117, 122 (3d Cir.1997). It is well established that impeachment evidence can constitute exculpatory evidence under Brady and its progeny and Hollman is correct that evidence of a government witness's prior criminal history is evidence which must be produced to the defense. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87...