Worley v. State

• Decision Date: 11 January 2017
• Docket Number: S-15-0114,S-16-0082,S-16-0083
• Citation: 2017 WY 3,386 P.3d 765
• Parties: Matthew Scott Worley, Appellant (Defendant), v. The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). Matthew Scott Worley, Appellant (Defendant), v. The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). Matthew Scott Worley, Appellant (Defendant), v. The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

386 P.3d 765

2017 WY 3

Matthew Scott Worley, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Matthew Scott Worley, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Matthew Scott Worley, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-15-0114

S-16-0082

S-16-0083

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

January 11, 2017

Representing Appellant: Office of the Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Olson.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Christyne Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Timothy W. Miller, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Miller.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] A jury convicted Matthew Scott Worley of one count of first-degree sexual assault and one count of battery of a household member.¹ On appeal, Mr. Worley claims he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the prosecutor failed to disclose information as required by Brady v. Maryland , 371 U.S. 812, 83 S.Ct. 56, 9 L.Ed.2d 54 (1962) and the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain the battery conviction. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Mr. Worley presents the following issues on appeal:

I. Was trial counsel for [Mr. Worley] ineffective when he failed to challenge the credibility of the alleged victim?

II. Did the prosecutor commit misconduct when he failed to disclose exculpatory evidence relating to the alleged victim?

III. Was there sufficient evidence to support [Mr. Worley's] conviction of battery?

FACTS

[¶3] On Thanksgiving Day of 2013, Officers Ryan Mussell and Dennis Deur with the Gillette Police Department responded to a report of a 911 hang up call. They responded to the address in question and first made contact with Mr. Worley. Mr. Worley invited the officers inside, and Officer Mussell interviewed Mr. Worley while Officer Deur interviewed Mr. Worley's wife, Rebecca Worley. Officer Mussell learned that, although Mr. and Mrs. Worley were married, Mr. Worley did not live at the apartment with Mrs. Worley. Mr. Worley also told Officer Mussell that he thought Mrs. Worley would claim that Mr. Worley punched her in the face. Mr. Worley explained that he had been drinking whiskey throughout the day and did not recall punching his wife in the face.

[¶4] Officer Deur observed cut marks on Mrs. Worley's collarbone and noticed that her right eye was swollen. Mrs. Worley told Officer Deur that Mr. Worley had hit her with an open hand, and then, while she was performing fellatio on Mr. Worley, he told her she was "doing it wrong" and punched her in the face. Based on Mrs. Worley's injuries, the officers arrested Mr. Worley for battery.

[¶5] At the police station, Mrs. Worley gave Officer Deur further information about the events of the evening. Mrs. Worley stated that Mr. Worley forced her to perform fellatio by saying if she did not, he would "beat her ass." She further alleged that Mr. Worley forced her to engage in anal sex followed by more fellatio. She said that Mr. Worley was holding an open folding knife and told her he would kill her if she did not comply. She also told Officer Deur that Mr. Worley had cut three moles off of her body with a pair of scissors without her consent. Mrs. Worley explained she had fled the apartment and hid in the basement of the building. Once she believed Mr. Worley had left the building, she returned to her apartment and attempted to barricade the door with a coffee table, couch and chair. However, Mr. Worley returned and forced his way back into the apartment. Mrs. Worley tried to lock herself in the bathroom, but Mr. Worley broke his way into the bathroom. It was then that Mrs. Worley called for law enforcement assistance.

[¶6] The State charged Mr. Worley with two counts of first-degree sexual assault (one for fellatio and one for anal penetration), one count of aggravated assault and battery, and one count of battery of a household member. The case proceeded to a two day jury trial. Mrs. Worley testified about the events of that day and was extensively cross-examined regarding her recollection. Mr. Worley also testified. He did not deny cutting a mole from his wife's body, striking her, or engaging in sexual conduct with her that day. However, he testified that the behavior was consensual and that "rough sex" was not unusual in their relationship. The State presented a cell phone video found on Mr. Worley's phone that showed Mr. Worley strike his wife in the face several times while she was performing fellatio. The jury convicted Mr. Worley of one count of first-degree sexual assault (fellatio) and battery of a household member. It acquitted him of the other charge of first-degree sexual assault (anal penetration) and aggravated assault and battery.

[¶7] Mr. Worley timely appealed his convictions and filed a motion under Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 21, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Mr. Worley argued that his trial attorney could have done more to attack Mrs. Worley's credibility using evidence under Wyoming Rules of Evidence 404(b), 608(a) and 609. Specifically, he claimed that his trial counsel did not investigate Mrs. Worley's previous criminal convictions, including felony convictions, or statements she made in a neglect case involving their two children.

[¶8] Following a hearing in which the district court heard testimony from Mr. Worley's trial attorney, the court concluded that Mr. Worley had not established ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court acknowledged that the ineffective assistance of counsel standard required Mr. Worley to prove that counsel's performance was deficient and that performance was prejudicial to the outcome of his case. However, the court determined it did not need to evaluate whether counsel's performance was deficient because Mr. Worley could not prove prejudice. The district court concluded that no amount of impeachment evidence could overcome the video of Mr. Worley repeatedly striking his wife while she performed fellatio. Additionally, Mr. Worley testified that the video recording was an accurate depiction of the events portrayed, giving further credence to the video. Mr. Worley now appeals that decision and also argues that there was prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence presented at the trial.

DISCUSSION

1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

[¶9] Mr. Worley argues his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct a sufficient investigation into Mrs. Worley's criminal history and some allegedly false statements she made to the Department of Family Services in a neglect case involving their children. He argues that had counsel conducted a more thorough investigation, he would have discovered information that could have been used to further impeach Mrs. Worley during her trial testimony. As mentioned above, the district court held an evidentiary hearing under W.R.A.P. 21 and determined that Mr. Worley did not establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel requiring a new trial. When reviewing the district court's decision, we utilize the following standard of review:

Review of a trial court's ruling on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim involves mixed questions of law and fact. Osborne [v. State , 2012 WY 123] , ¶ 17, 285 P.3d [248,] 252 [ (Wyo. 2012) ]. We defer to the district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Cooper [v. State, 2014 WY 36] , ¶ 20, 319 P.3d [914,] 920 [ (Wyo. 2014) ], citing Strandlien v. State , 2007 WY 66, ¶ 20, 156 P.3d 986, 992 (Wyo. 2007). The district court's conclusions of law, which include the question of whether counsel's conduct was deficient and the question of whether the appellant was prejudiced by that deficient conduct, are reviewed de novo . Strandlien , ¶ 20, 56 P.3d at 992, quoting Robinson v. State , 2003 WY 32, ¶ 16, 64 P.3d 743, 748 (Wyo. 2003).

Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16, ¶ 37, 367 P.3d 1108, 1124 (Wyo. 2016).

[¶10] In order to prove he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel necessitating a new trial, Mr. Worley is required to show two things. First, he must demonstrate his trial counsel's performance was deficient. Id ., ¶ 36, 367 P.3d at 1124. To show deficient performance, Mr. Worley must demonstrate that " ‘counsel failed to render such assistance as would have been offered by a reasonably competent attorney.’ " Id . (quoting Cooper , ¶ 19, 319 P.3d at 920 ). Second, Mr. Worley must show that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's deficient performance. Id ."Prejudice is established if ‘a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome would have been different.’ " Id . (quoting Osborne , ¶ 19, 285 P.3d at 252 ). Although Mr. Worley must affirmatively show both of these factors, courts are not required to analyze both factors if a defendant makes an insufficient showing of one of the factors. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Further, courts need not analyze whether counsel's performance was deficient before considering whether the defendant suffered prejudice. Id .

[¶11] Here, the district court disposed of Mr. Worley's claim on the prejudice factor and did not consider whether trial counsel's performance was deficient. Specifically, the district court concluded that even if each piece of proposed evidence had been used to further attack Mrs. Worley's credibility, the jury would have reached the same verdict. Based on the trial testimony, the court found Mrs. Worley's testimony generally not credible due to inconsistencies and failures of logic. However, the jury saw the video of Mrs. Worley performing fellatio while being struck repeatedly by Mr. Worley, saw a photo of the mole that Mr. Worley cut from his wife's body, and heard Mr. Worley's testimony...