Howard v. Delbalso, Civil Action No. 16-78 Erie
| Decision Date | 10 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 16-78 Erie |
| Parties | DONALD HOWARD, Petitioner, v. THERESA DELBALSO, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION1
Presently before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Donald Howard (the "Petitioner"). For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied and a certificate of appealability is denied on all claims.
On February 24, 2011, a jury empaneled by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County convicted the Petitioner of second-degree murder, robbery, theft by unlawful taking, and burglary.3 Garrett A. Taylor, Esquire, was the Petitioner's trial attorney. The victim in his case was 79-year-old Raymond Goodwill, who died from single wound he sustained from blunt force trauma to his head. Hisgirlfriend, Ellen Martin, discovered his body on July 4, 2009, when she went to his home to check on him on after he failed to return her phone calls. Martin found Goodwill's body on his couch. His arms and legs were bound by a yellow nylon cord. The coroner estimated that Goodwill died between 10 p.m. on July 3, 2009, and 10 a.m. on July 4, 2009.
Investigators obtained Goodwill's wallet on a dresser in his home. Goodwill always carried a fake million dollar bill in it, and that item was missing. The Petitioner did odd jobs for Goodwill. When the police interviewed him, he gave contradictory statements about his whereabouts and the money he spent during the relevant time period and he soon became a suspect. The Commonwealth's theory at the Petitioner's trial was that the Petitioner robbed and murdered Goodwill because he was on a crack-cocaine binge and he was desperate for money so that he could buy more drugs. It introduced evidence to support its theory of the case, including evidence to show that the Petitioner's DNA was found on Goodwill's wallet and that in the early morning hours of July 4, 2009, he attempted to buy drugs with the fake million dollar bill.
On April 13, 2011, the court sentenced the Petitioner to a term of life imprisonment on his second-degree murder conviction and a concurrent 2-10 years of imprisonment on his burglary conviction. In his direct appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the Petitioner raised numerous claims of trial court error.4 Commonwealth v. Howard, No. 1230 WDA 2011, 2013 WL 11273239, *1-2 (Pa.Super.Ct. Mar. 4, 2013) ("Howard I"). The only relevant claim that he raised in his direct appeal was that the "the trial court improperly permitted Trooper Keller to present hearsay testimony regarding thefake million dollar bill and the source of the information." Id. at *6. The Superior Court denied this claim on the merits, explaining:
Id. at *6 ().5 The Superior Court also denied the Petitioner's other claims and affirmed his judgment of sentence. Id. at *1-8.
On or around February 27, 2014, the Petitioner filed a pro se motion under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. (CP. No. 63). He was entitled to the appointment of counsel under state law, but he expressly advised the court in his PCRA motion that "I do not want a lawyer to represent me." (Id. at 7).
In his PCRA motion, the Petitioner contended that Attorney Taylor provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel for failing "to present evidence of exculpatory nature that would show that the wallet [that] was presented at trial, was in fact the wrong wallet" and "failing to call [the Petitioner's sister] as a defense witness." (Id. at 3). He also alleged once again that the trial court erred in permitting Trooper Keller to testify that Mary Hoffman told him that about the fake million dollar bill. This time, the Petitioner contended that Trooper Keller's testimony violated his right to confront Mary Hoffman. (Id. at 3). Because his case was now on collateral review and the Superior Court had already found on direct appeal that there was no error with respect to the way in which the trial court handled the defense's hearsay objection to the challenged testimony, the Petitioner would have to show that Attorney Taylor was ineffective for failing to raise an objection under the Confrontation Clause.
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are governed by the familiar standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).6 To prevail on a claim of ineffectiveassistance under Strickland, the Petitioner has the burden of establishing that his trial "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." 466 U.S. at 688. "This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment." Id. at 687. Importantly, the Supreme Court emphasized that "counsel should be 'strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment[.]'" Burt v. Titlow, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 10, 17 (2013) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690). See also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104 (2011) () (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689).
The Supreme Court also instructed:
"Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy task." Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, —, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1485, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). An ineffective-assistance claim can function as a way to escape rules of waiver and forfeiture and raise issues not presented at trial, and so the Strickland standard must be applied with scrupulous care, lest "intrusive post-trial inquiry" threaten the integrity of the very adversary process the right to counsel is meant to serve. Strickland, 466 U.S., at 689-690, 104 S. Ct. 2052. Even under de novo review, the standard for judging counsel's representation is a most deferential one. Unlike a later reviewing court, the attorney observed the relevant proceedings, knew of materials outside the record, and interacted with the client, with opposing counsel, and with the judge.
Strickland also requires that the Petitioner demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged deficient performance. This places the burden on him to establish "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors," the result of his trial "would havebeen different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained:
[The Petitioner] "need not show that counsel's deficient performance 'more likely than not altered the outcome of the case' - rather, he must show only 'a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.'" Jacobs v. Horn, 395 F.3d 92, 105 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94). On the other hand, it is not enough "to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding." [Richter], 131 S.Ct. at 787 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693). Counsel's errors must be "so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial." Id. at 787-88 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable. Id.
Brown v. Wenerowicz, 663 F.3d 619, 630 (3d Cir. 2011).
On May 27, 2014, after the Commonwealth had filed its answer to the PCRA motion (ECF No. 65), the Petitioner filed a motion to amend. The PCRA court granted that motion on June 5, 2014. (ECF No. 70).
On July 19, 2014, the PCRA court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the Petitioner's claims for July 29, 2014. (ECF No. 72). The hearing was held as scheduled. At the beginning, the PCRA court judge conducted a colloquy to ensure that the Petitioner wanted to represent himself. The Petitioner stated that he did. PCRA Hr'g Tr. at 2. The judge advised him of the challenges that representing himself would pose and the attendant risks, and the Petitioner replied that he understood and assured the judge that he did not want the assistance of counsel. Id. at 2-3.
The Petitioner then handed the judge his amended PCRA motion. Id. at 4. The judge stated that he would review it during the hearing. In this amended motion, the Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to PCRA...
To continue reading
Request your trial