Martin v. Mapes

• Decision Date: 10 February 2011
• Docket Number: No. 4:10-cv-00150-JAJ,4:10-cv-00150-JAJ
• Parties: BRUCE E. MARTIN, Petitioner, v. TERRY MAPES, Warden Newton Correctional Facility, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

BRUCE E. MARTIN, Petitioner,

v.TERRY MAPES, Warden Newton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

No. 4:10-cv-00150-JAJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

DATED: February 10, 2011

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Bruce E. Martin's ("Martin") April 2, 2010 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Dkt. No. 1.] Martin filed an Amended Petition on April 26, 2010, and a First Amended Petition on May 25, 2010. [Dkt. Nos. 5 & 12.] Martin challenges a conviction in state court for one count of second-degree sexual abuse and one count of lascivious acts with a child. In his petition for relief, Martin claims that he was coerced into signing a confession admitting sexual abuse. He also claims that his trial counsel were ineffective in failing to: (a) move to suppress the confession; (b) pursue a defense of diminished capacity; (c) fully investigate the allegations upon which Martin was charged, such as obtaining possible exculpatory police and Department of Human Services ("DHS") reports; and (d) take more depositions. For the following reasons, the Court denies Martin's § 2254 application.

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY¹

A. Plea Agreement and Sentence

Martin was charged by trial information on December 1, 2003, with four counts of second-degree sexual abuse in violation of Iowa Code § 709.3(2), for sexually abusing his daughter, A.M., during the years of 1995 and 1996.² Trial Information, Dec. 1, 2003. The State filed an amended trial information on February 11, 2004, adding a charge of lascivious acts with a child, his daughter, in violation of Iowa Code § 709.8. Amended and Substituted Trial Information, Feb. 11, 2004. The victim was four years old at the time the crimes were committed.

Represented by Bruce Ingham, Martin entered a plea of guilty on February 11, 2004. Memo. of Plea Agmt., Feb. 11, 2004. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Martin pled guilty to second-degree sexual abuse in Count I and lascivious acts with a child in Count V. Id. The court found a factual basis for the pleas and sentencing was set for March 4, 2004. Plea Tr. at 22, Feb. 11, 2004. The State agreed to dismiss the other three counts, to make no recommendation as to whether the counts would run concurrently or consecutively, and to recommend that the sentence imposed run consecutive to an unrelated sentence he was currently serving.³ Memo. of Plea Agmt., Feb. 11, 2004. The court informed Martin that any challenges to the pleas based on alleged defects in the proceedings must be raised in a motion in arrest of judgment or he would be preventedfrom later raising such a challenge on appeal. Plea Tr. at 23.

Martin moved to withdraw his guilty plea, which the court granted on March 17, 2004. Order, Mar. 17, 2004. The court also appointed James Clements to serve as Martin's counsel. Id. But Martin then re-entered a guilty plea on June 10, 2004, for second-degree sexual abuse and lascivious acts with a child. Plea Tr., June 10, 2004. The plea agreement contained the same terms as the earlier plea agreement. Memo. of Plea Agmt., June 10, 2004. The court also found a factual basis for the guilty pleas based on the following exchange:

THE COURT: Now, the State claims that back around January 1, 1995, here in Scott County, with respect to count I, that you did engage in a sex act with a person under twelve years of age. Is that true?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: What kind of sex act was it?

THE DEFENDANT: Fondling. Fondled her vagina area, touched her vagina area.

THE COURT: Did you touch her vagina with your hand or penis?

THE DEFENDANT: With my hands, finger.

THE COURT: Then with respect to count 5, lascivious acts with a child, the State also claims that in that same time period you had some contact as I previously outlined with another child, is that true?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Was the same child –

THE DEFENDANT: No. Same child? Yes.

THE COURT: Different occasion than the one you just described with the respect to the sex abuse?

THE DEFENDANT: No, it was the same one. Is that the one you're talking about?

THE COURT: So with respect to the lascivious acts, you indicated that you had contact between your hand and the vaginal area of a child, is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Right.

THE COURT: And was that on separate occasion than the act that you talked about with respect to the sex abuse in count 1?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

Plea Tr. at 10-11, June 10, 2004.

The court then set Martin's sentencing for July 1, 2004, and also reminded Martin about his inability to challenge his plea on appeal if he failed to first raise the challenge in a motion in arrest of judgment. Id. at 13-14. Pursuant to Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure 2.24(3)(b), a motion in arrest of judgment must be filed not later than forty-five days after the guilty plea, "but in any case not later than five days before the date set for pronouncing judgment." Martin did not file a timely motion in arrest of judgment.

On the date of his sentencing, Martin made a second request to withdraw his guilty plea and as a result, the sentencing was continued to July 9, 2004. Order, July 1, 2004. At sentencing, Martin stated that he had simply changed his mind and that he would "just like to take it to trial so I could prove to the State my innocence." Sentencing Tr. at 7, July 9, 2004. The court found no legal basis for Martin to withdraw his plea and denied his motion. Id. at 8. The court then sentenced Martin to twenty-five years in prison for second-degree sexual abuse and five years in prison for lascivious acts with a child, with the sentences to run concurrently to each other, but consecutive to the undischarged sentence Martin was currently serving. Id. at 13-14. He was also sentenced to an additional two-year term of parole or work release in connection with the sentence for lascivious acts. Id. at 14-15.

Martin filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence on August 9, 2004, which the court denied on the same day. Mtn. for Reconsideration, Aug. 9, 2004; Ruling, Aug. 9, 2004.

On July 12, 2004, Martin filed a notice of appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. This was assigned number 04-1107. On November 1, 2004, the State and Martin's appellate counsel filed a joint motion to reverse and remand for re-sentencing because the district court improperly imposed an additional two-year term of parole or work releasefollowing Marin's lascivious acts prison term. Jt. Mtn. to Reverse, Nov. 1, 2004. The Iowa Supreme Court granted the motion on December 16, 2004, and on January 3, 2005, the district court deleted the two-year term at issue. Order, Dec. 16, 2004; Sentencing Order, Jan. 3, 2005.

B. First Application for Post-Conviction Relief

Martin filed an application for post-conviction relief on January 6, 2005.⁴ App. Postconviction Relief, Jan. 6, 2005. In his petition, Martin asserted that he had been coerced into giving a confession by a police officer and that his trial counsel had failed to investigate DHS and police department records for possible exculpatory evidence. Id. at 3. Martin's post-conviction relief counsel, Penelope Souhrada, filed an amended application on October 23, 2006, in which she alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for: (1) failing to move to suppress the confession; (2) failing to pursue a diminished capacity defense; (3) failing to fully investigate the allegations against him and obtain possible exculpatory evidence; and (4) failing to depose several witnesses. Am. App. Postconviction Relief, Oct. 23, 2006.

An evidentiary hearing on Martin's application was held on October 24, 2006. Hr'g Tr., Oct. 24, 2006. The trial lawyer, James Clements, testified that the trial court appointed him to represent Martin after Martin was allowed to withdraw his first guilty plea. Id. at 12. Mr. Clements then explained his investigation of the case:

A: Well, I did the kind of investigation that is typically done in a serious case like this. I reviewed with him all of the allegations, reviewed everything that was in the Trial Information, discussed things that he disagreed with, discussed possible trial strategy. He had some issues that he felt things that had happened earlier that mighttend to prove exculpatory in this case, so I subpoenaed from the police department, the Davenport Police Department, all records that they had that referred to him regarding the matter.

Q: Did you obtain any records from the Department of Human Services?

. . .

A: I did not obtain any records. We – my client and I discussed obtaining records from them. It's a little bit more difficult than it is simply subpoenaing the records from the police department. The record that he wanted me to get my hands on, he believed that there would be a record in the Department of an earlier incident in which the alleged victim in this case had been examined by a doctor, and he asserted that at that time the doctor determined that there wasn't any evidence of any abuse. I felt if we actually went to trial, it might be – it might be useful. It wouldn't be dispositive of anything, but I did determine that we should try to find out how we might be able to get it. The problem I had was I didn't know exactly when this incident occurred, who was involved, you know , what caseworkers or anything like that.

. . .

Q: Mr. Martin had signed a statement when he was interrogated by the Bettendorf Police Department which appeared to be a confession of certain acts that he's alleged to have committed. Did you make any effort to try and get that signed statement or confession suppressed?

A: I don't recall making any motions to do so. I don't believe that we had any grounds to do so. This was a discussion and a statement that was signed in front of a Bettendorf police officer, the detective, and also a counselor down at the prison. I–I recall, but not clearly, having a phone conversation with the prison counselor, but I–I couldn't remember the substance. . . .

Id. at 13-16. Mr....