Title: Denmon v. State

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Denmon v. State1999 WY 145989 P.2d 631Case Number: 99-80Decided: 11/05/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming

SAMUEL HOWARD DENMON, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

                                 

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, 
Honorable John

C. Brackley, Judge.

 

Sylvia Lee Hackl, State 
Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Monique McBride, 
Assistant Appellate Counsel, representing 
Appellant.

 Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, 
Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; 
and Barbara L. Boyer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, representing 
Appellee.

 

    Before LEHMAN, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, and HILL, JJ.

 

    HILL, 
Justice.

   
[¶1]      Appellant Sam Denmon claims he was 
denied effective assistance of counsel when he was tried and convicted of one 
count of aggravated assault. We find that counsel's performance was not 
deficient, and we 
affirm.

 

                                
FACTS

 

  [¶2]      The events leading to Appellant's arrest 
occurred during an altercation beween Appellant and his roommate, Juanita 
Tibbett, on May 26, 1998. The companions had moved together from Yakima, 
Washington to Sheridan, Wyoming in March 
of 1998, and lived in a travel trailer until Tibbett rented a one-bedroom 
apartment.  Tibbett slept in the 
bedroom, while Appellant slept in the living room. Tibbett testified that on May 
26, 1998, Appellant had been drinking heavily.  Appellant and Tibbett started to argue, 
and Tibbett told Appellant to remove his belongings from the apartment. At that 
point, Appellant took a rifle from under the mattress, loaded it, and pointed it 
at Tibbett. Appellant then said, "[h]ow would you like to die now, bitch?"  Tibbett testified that at that point, 
Appellant teetered back into the wall. She then left the apartment and went to 
the neighbors to ask them to call the police.

 

  [¶3]      Appellant's version of the events was 
diametrically opposed to that of Tibbett. He testified that he was the one who 
decided to leave the relationship, and while he was moving his belongings out of 
the apartment, he and Tibbett got into an argument over the apartment keys. 
Appellant stated that the argument occurred after he 
had moved the rifle from the apartment to a trailer parked outside the 
apartment. When the police arrived, Appellant showed them the rifle and 
ammunition in the locked trailer, but he was nonetheless arrested at that 
time.

 

  [¶4]      Appellant's claim on appeal centers on 
witness testimony which followed Tibbett's unsolicited statements at trial 
indicating that there may have been previous incidents of domestic violence 
committed by Appellant. After Tibbett 
concluded her testimony, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The motion was 
denied, and two officers subsequently testified that they knew Appellant prior 
to his arrest. Defense counsel did not object to this testimony. The jury found 
Appellant guilty of one count of aggravated assault, and this timely appeal 
followed. Appellant now claims that his counsel was ineffective in failing to 
object to the officers' 
testimony.

 

                               
ISSUES

 

  [¶5]      Appellant presents this statement of the 
issue:

 

I. Whether Appellant was denied effective assistance 
of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States 
Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Wyoming 
Constitution.

 

  Appellee rephrases the issue 
as:

 

Appellant's counsel properly and adequately 
represents him as required and guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United 
States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Wyoming 
Constitution.

 

                         
STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

  [¶6]      The standard of review for claims of 
ineffective assistance of counsel was recently stated in Hornecker v. State, 977 P.2d 1289 (Wyo. 1999):

 

In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel, [Appellant] must make the dual showings that his 
counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance 
prejudiced his defense. Smith v. State, 959 P.2d 1193, 1198 (Wyo. 1998); 
Martinez v. State, 943 P.2d 1178, 1184 (Wyo. 1997). We invoke a strong presumption that 
counsel rendered adequate and reasonable assistance, making all decisions within 
the bounds of reasonable professional judgment. Mapp v. State, 953 P.2d 140, 143 (Wyo. 1998); Jackson v. State, 902 P.2d 1292, 1295 (Wyo. 1995).

 

  Id. at 1291.

 

                             
DISCUSSION

 

  [¶7]      Appellant maintains that his trial 
counsel's performance was ineffective because counsel failed to object during 
the testimony of the officers, and that this testimony compounded the prejudice 
caused by Tibbett's testimony regarding Appellant's prior acts of domestic 
violence. Appellant concludes that because the case revolved around the 
credibility battle between him and Tibbett, evidence of prior police contacts 
improperly allowed the jury to infer that if Appellant once physically abused 
Tibbett, he would do so again.

 

  [¶8]      We can find no indication that counsel's 
performance was deficient or that the testimony of the officers prejudiced 
Appellant's case.  Tibbett's 
unsolicited testimony regarding prior instances of domestic violence occurred 
during cross-examination. She stated, "[w]hen [Appellant] wasn't drinking, he 
was a very nice person; and he is.  
In fact, I told this to the police officers on the other two occasions 
that he [sic] had to come." Later on redirect, the witness again attempted to 
volunteer that Appellant "had gotten very violent with me before and shoved me into the wall." The prosecutor, 
however, immediately interrupted the witness and directed her to answer the 
question that was asked.

 

  [¶9]      After Tibbett testified, the court took 
a recess. The judge and counsel went into chambers, where defense counsel 
objected to Tibbett's testimony regarding Appellant's alleged prior bad acts and 
requested a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the 
comment was brief, contained no specifics, and was vague as to a time frame. This ruling is not 
challenged on appeal.

 

  [¶10] 
  Following Tibbett's 
testimony, the prosecution called Officer Ford, who was one of the officers that 
responded to the call on the night in question. Officer Ford 
testified:

 

            Q. 
What was the next thing that happened?

 

            A. At 
that time I heard Officer Hall advise that he was in contact with the person who 
- Mr. Denmon.

 

            Q. 
Had the dispatcher given you names of the parties 
involved?

 

            A. 
Yes. And, also, I was familiar with the person from a prior 
contact.

 

Defense counsel did not 
object, and there was no further mention of any prior contact between Officer 
Ford and Appellant.

 

  [¶11] 
  Officer Hall was the next 
witness. He testified as follows:

 

            Q. 
What did you do?

 

            A. 
The other officers and I had a brief discussion as to possibly setting up a 
perimeter, where to go.  I 
responded to the scene first and pulled up into the northernmost parking lot of 
the apartment complex.

 

            Q. 
And when you did that, did you observe anything?

 

A. Yes. As I pulled into the parking lot, I saw Mr. 
Denmon walking into the parking lot; and I recognized him to be Sam 
Denmon.

 

            Q. 
You had known him before?

 

            A. 
Yes.

 

            Q. 
What did you do after you recognized Mr. Denmon?

 

A. When I saw that it was Sam Denmon, I radioed out 
to the other officers of who I had found and what I was out with. I then pulled 
up into the area where he was walking, kind of yelled, "Hey, Sam" to him; and he 
turned. I instructed him to put his hands up.

 

  Again, there was no objection to this 
exchange.

 

  [¶12] 
  Defense counsel's failure 
to object to this testimony is the basis for Appellant's claim that he received 
ineffective assistance of counsel. We find Appellant's claim without merit as to 
both the required elements. Counsel's failure to object is clearly a reasonable 
decision within the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Officer Ford's testimony stated 
only that he was familiar with Denmon from a "prior contact," and Officer Hall 
merely said he knew Appellant before he saw him that night.  Neither of these statements reference a 
prior bad act, let alone a bad act involving abuse to Tibbett. Had counsel 
objected, the jury would have been 
alerted that the prior contacts were not of an innocent 
nature.

 

  [¶13] 
  In addition, Appellant 
fails to show any prejudice caused by this testimony. Even were the jury to 
assume that the prior contacts were related to some criminal activity, Appellant 
himself testified in detail as to his 
prior familiarity with the officers. Appellant recounted an incident which 
occurred before the night of his alleged assault. Appellant stated that Tibbett 
was angry with him because he had given a television to the neighbors. Appellant 
later testified that on the night of his arrest, one of the policement knew 
Appellant and wanted to know "if [he] 
had any more problems with the neighbors over that night that they were called 
about the TV."

 

  [¶14] 
  Further, Appellant used 
this prior contact to establish a motive for the police to falsify their 
testimony, thus explaining the discrepancy between the officers' account of the 
night and Appellant's.  On direct 
examination, Appellant's testimony directly contradicted the officers'. On cross 
examination, when Appellant was asked if he knew of "any reason whatsoever why 
Officer Hall would have any animosity towards [Appellant] whatsoever," Appellant 
responded:

 

The only thing that I can think of is the girl that I 
was going to give the TV to, I had told him and the other officer when they came 
that night that they were having parties all night long and smoking dope and 
stuff like that out on the balcony until 3:00 and 4:00 o'clock in the morning. 
And at the time I didn't know that it was supposedly one of them's girlfriend 
that lived in the apartment.

 

Appellant cannot now claim 
his defense was prejudiced by the failure to object to testimony that the 
officers knew him; he used his prior contact with the same officers to impeach 
their credibility. Our review of the record leads to but one conclusion - 
Appellant received adequate assistance of counsel at trial, and his conviction 
did not result "from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the 
result unreliable."  Strickland v. 
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 674 
(1984).

 

                 
            CONCLUSION

 

  [¶15] 
  The failure of Appellant's 
counsel to object to the testimony of two police officers did not constitute 
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Appellant's conviction is 
affirmed.