Vinson v. True

• Decision Date: 15 December 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-29.,04-29.
• Citation: 436 F.3d 412
• Parties: Dexter Lee VINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William Page TRUE, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 412

436 F.3d 412

Dexter Lee VINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William Page TRUE, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-29.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 26, 2005.

Decided December 15, 2005.

Amended Opinion Filed February 1, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

ARGUED:

Matthew Leland Engle, Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Katherine P. Baldwin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF:

Robert E. Lee, Jr., Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center, Charlottesville, Virginia; Mark E. Olive, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant. Judith W. Jagdmann, Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge WIDENER and Judge DUNCAN joined.

OPINION

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge.

Dexter Lee Vinson appeals the denial of his federal habeas petition, in which he sought relief from a death sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability on three issues: (1) whether the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Vinson's claim that his trial counsel operated under an unconstitutional conflict of interest; (2) whether Vinson was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether the state failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief.

I.

In December 1998, a Virginia jury convicted Dexter Lee Vinson of the capital murder of Angela Felton, object sexual penetration, abduction with intent to defile, and carjacking.¹ In a separate sentencing proceeding, the jury sentenced Vinson to life in prison for each of the three non-capital offenses, and to death on the capital murder charge, finding that the crime was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, aggravated battery to the victim," and that there was "a probability that he would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society." The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed.

Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 459, 522 S.E.2d 170 (1999). The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari. Vinson v. Commonwealth, 530 U.S. 1218, 120 S.Ct. 2226, 147 L.Ed.2d 257 (2000). Vinson then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Virginia, which it dismissed in November 2001. An execution date was subsequently set for February 28, 2002, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia stayed the execution on February 25, 2002. Vinson then filed a petition for federal habeas relief with the district court, which ultimately denied him any relief and dismissed his petition. We granted Vinson a certificate of appealability limited to the three issues enumerated above.

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d) (West Supp.2005), federal courts reviewing petitions for habeas relief must give great deference to state court judgments on the merits. A writ should not be granted on any claim adjudicated on the merits by the state court unless the 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 was "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." Id.

II.

Vinson initially contends that the district court erred in not granting him an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether his trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest.

Vinson argues that under Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) and Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992), a federal habeas court must grant an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an actual conflict of interest exists. Townsend and Keeney establish that a habeas petitioner "is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he can show cause for his failure to develop the facts in state-court proceedings and actual prejudice resulting from that failure," or that "a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from failure to hold a federal evidentiary hearing." Keeney, 504 U.S. at 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 1715.

Vinson relies on Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) for his conflict of interest claim. In Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that "[i]n order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." Id. at 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708. If a defendant successfully demonstrates that "a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation," he "need not demonstrate prejudice in order to obtain relief." Id. at 349-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708.

Vinson's conflict of interest claim arises from the undisputed fact that during his trial, Vinson's "second chair" counsel, Tanya Lomax, was suing Vinson's lead counsel, John Underwood, for employment discrimination that had allegedly occurred during Lomax's employment at the Portsmouth Public Defender's Office. Vinson contends that the separate employment litigation between Lomax and Underwood adversely affected his representation in two ways: first, Lomax suffered health problems resulting from the stress of the litigation; and second, the way Underwood and Lomax divided the work and responsibilities of his case into distinct guilt and sentencing phases left Lomax inadequately supervised by Underwood.

When Vinson raised this claim for the first time in the state habeas proceedings, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the claim was barred under state law because it could have been brought on direct appeal. See Slayton v. Parrigan, 215 Va. 27, 205 S.E.2d 680 (1974). This procedural bar constitutes an adequate and independent state law ground for default. See Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 159-60 (4th Cir.1998). Absent a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which Vinson does not assert, federal habeas courts may not review procedurally barred claims "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). To establish "cause," a prisoner must "show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel's efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule." Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) (emphasis added). This requires a demonstration that "the factual or legal basis for the claim was not reasonably available to the claimant at the time of the state proceeding." Roach v. Angelone, 176 F.3d 210, 222 (4th Cir.1999) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991)). A petitioner may not establish cause "by pointing to evidence that the petitioner `knew about or could have discovered' through a `reasonable investigation.'" Basden v. Lee, 290 F.3d 602, 618 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 497-98, 111 S.Ct. 1454); see also Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 687 (4th Cir.2001).

Rather than relying on evidence not "reasonably available" to him "at the time of the state proceeding," Vinson instead "point[s] to evidence" that he clearly "knew about" at the time of his trial. Prior to trial Lomax informed Vinson of the facts giving rise to the asserted conflict, and Vinson consented to representation by "conflicted" counsel. In a sworn, written waiver, Vinson explicitly stated that "[w]ith full knowledge and understanding of Attorney Lomax's complaint and disclosure, I freely and voluntarily give my consent to have Attorney Lomax continue to represent me in the above-styled matter." In Vinson's presence, defense counsel then presented Vinson's waiver to the trial court. In light of this waiver, it is plain that the facts of the alleged conflict between Lomax and Underwood were not only available to Vinson, but were specifically presented to him for his consideration and consent. His voluntary, knowing, and informed decision to continue with Lomax as his counsel precludes any argument that a factor external to the defense caused the procedural default. Vinson thus does not depend on facts that could not have been previously discovered, and he cannot establish cause to overcome the procedural bar.²

In addition to its holding that the claim was procedurally barred from habeas review, the Supreme Court of Virginia also rejected Vinson's conflict claim on the merits. Sworn statements from both Underwood and Lomax stated inter alia that the discrimination suit had no effect on their representation of Vinson, that the two lawyers had a good working relationship with no friction, problems or issues during their representation of Vinson. The court explained that Vinson was fully informed by counsel of the details of the conflict and was told he could obtain alternate counsel, but that he decided to continue with Lomax as his counsel. Consequently, the state court held that there was "no evidence that an actual conflict of interest existed between lawyer and client."

Given these facts, we can hardly find the state court's rejection of Vinson's conflict of interest claim on the merits contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See id. § 2254(d). The Court has explained that to succeed on a conflict of interest claim, a petitioner must establish that "`his counsel actively represented conflicting interests,'" and that this conflict ...