2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-23-2004 

# N ole n v . M eye rs P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2118

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" N o le n v . M eye r s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 783. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/783* The H onorab le John R . Gibson, S enior Circu it Judge for the United S tates Court

of Appeals for t

he Eighth Cir cuit, sitting by designation. 

### 1 NOT PRECEDE NTIAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No. 03-2118 CHRI STOP HER NOLE N,

Appellant
v. ROBERT W. MEYERS

_________________________________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania District Judge: T he H onorab le James F . McC lure, Jr. (D.C. No. 00-cv- 00196)

_________________________________ Su bm itted und er T hird Cir cuit L AR 34.1

on March 25, 2004 Bef or e: FUENT ES, SMIT H, an d GI BSON, * Circuit Judges (Fil ed: April23, 2004)

______________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

_______________________

### 2

GI BS ON , Circuit

Judge
. Christ opher Nolen appeal s the deni al of hi s peti tion for a writ of ha

beas corpus clai ming his Si xth Amendment right to effective ass ist ance of counselwas violat ed by
counse l' s f

ai lure to re que st

an a libi jury

in stru ct io n. We af

fi rm. In the e arly even ing o f N ovem ber 2 1, 198 1, two mas ked m en arm ed w ith handguns enter ed Ritchi e's Tavern in Londonderr y Township, Pennsylvania. One of the
men orde red, "D on't mo ve or I'll shoot." W hen th e pro prietor o f the ta vern , Carro ll Ritchi e, approa ched the t wo men, each one fir ed his gun. One of the men fired hi s gun a
sec ond time , and this b ullet struc k an d ki lled R itchi e. No len w as iden tified as one o f the sh ooters by Da vid C rater, w ho co nfes sed to being the driver

of the get away car. Crater t esti fied that he, Nolen, DauntelEvans, and JoeyBoyer had original ly planned t o rob a countr y gr ocery

store that e vening. As they dr ov e to w ar d t he sto re , B oye r d ec id ed th at h e n o l on ge r w an ted an y pa rt o f th e r ob be ry, got out of th e vehicle an d wa lked hom e. The oth er three me n reached the grocery store but abandoned t

heir pl an to rob i t aft er noti cing the number of people i nside. They t urned their atte ntion t o nearby

Ritchi e's Tavern inst ead. Crat er tes tifi ed that he enter ed the tavern f irst to surve y t

he premises , the n retur

ned to the car to wai t while Nole n and Eva ns, fac es co ncea led, en tered th e tave rn w ith the h andg uns. C rater he ard thr ee sh ots fired, then Nolen and Evans r an from the t avern and the three men drove off. Nolen was tri ed and convict ed in Pennsylvania stat e court of

second-degr ee1 The grandmother only appeared at the firs t tri al; her tes t imony was read into the

record i n the second. 

### 3 murder, robbery , and criminal conspiracy . However, hi s conviction was vacat ed by t he Pennsylvania Supreme Court , which concluded that the trial c ourt er

red in not

allowing defense counselto cros s-examine Crater about his rol e in the incide nt and his expectation of le nien cy in re turn for his te stim ony. Commonw ealth v. Evans , 512 A.2d 626 (Pa. 198 6). O n re ma nd, N olen wa s tried and con victe d ag ain. During the s econd tri al, there was t esti mony pres ented fr om both Nolen's sist er and grandm other. 1 Nolen's sist er tes tifi ed that Nolen had been at he r home by 5: 30 p.m. on th e n ig ht of

th e s ho ot in g a nd ha d s taye d t he re fo r th e r em ain de r o f th e n ig ht . N ol en 's gran dm other, w ho live d sep arately fro m h is sister, testifie d that N olen w as at herhome by 7:00 p.m. on the night

in quest ion and st ayed t here for t he remainder

of the ni ght. She also t esti fied that he had been at her home fr om 7:00 onward every night during the weeks surroundi ng the shoot ing, de spit e Nolen's admissi on that he committed t wo other robberi es duri ng that time. Nolen' s att orney did not r equest an a libijury inst ructi on, and late r explained that

he conscious ly

chose not t o request

such an ins truction on account of the in con siste ncie s be twe en th e sist er's an d gr and mo ther 's testim ony. In August 1993, N olen filed a petition for relief under the Pennsy lvania Post Convicti on Relief Act, 42 Pa. Cons. St at. §§ 9541 et seq ., a lleging that he was denied effective assistanc e of cou nsel based in part on co unsel’s failure to req uest an alibi jury

### 4

instruc tion. Fo llow ing the adve rse rulin gs of state co urts, inclu ding the P enns ylvania Supreme Court' s denialof a peti tion for allowance of appe al, Nolen fil ed this habeas corp us pe tition. Th e district c ourt fo und that N olen h ad pr oper ly exhau sted h is state remedies b ut that his ineffective a ssistance of co unsel claim lack ed me rit and therefore dismis sed his pe tition. We r ev ie w de novo the d istrict cou rt’s d enia l of h abe as c orp us re lief. Steele v. Blackman , 236 F.3d 130, 133 (3d Cir. 2001). "[ A] federal c ourt may grant habe as rel ief only if the stat e court' s decis ion was ' contrar y t o, or i nvolved an unre asonable a pplication of, cl early

establ ished Federal law, as deter mined by t

he Supreme Court of t

he United States ,' or was 'ba sed on an unreas onable det erminat ion of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court pr oceeding.'" Chadwick v. Janecka , 312 F.3d 597, 606 -07 (3d Cir . 200 2) (q uot ing 28 U .S.C . § 22 54( d)(1 ), (d)( 2)), cert. denied123 S.C t. 1914 (2003). In order

to succee d on an ineffective ass ist ance of counselclai m, the Supreme Court has hel d that a defendant must

show: 1) that the pe rformance of couns el fell below an objective st andard of rea sonablenes s; and 2) that t he error s of counsel prejud iced the d efe nse . Stri ckland v. Washington , 466 U.S . 668 , 687 -88 , 692 (19 84)
. We cannot conclude t

hat the stat e court’ s decis ion deny ing post -conviction rel ief was contrar

y t o, or an unr easonable applic ation of , Supreme Court

precedent

on ineffective ass ist ance of counselclai ms under the Si xth Amendment. Nolen’s tri al counsel t esti fied during the st ate post -conviction procee dings t hat he made a consc ious

### 5

dec ision not to p ursu e an alibi defens e ba sed on t he in con siste ncie s in th e alib i testim ony. He thought that an alibi jury instructi on wou ld serve only to highlight these incon sistenc ies. W hile this stra tegy ma y not hav e bee n idea l, the state c ourt ce rtainly did not err i n co ncludi ng t

hat it was o bj ectiv el yre as onabl e, es pec ia llyinli ght of t he S upr eme Co urt’s m anda te that “[ j]udicia l scrutiny of coun sel’s pe rform ance mu st be h ighly deferent ial. ” Stri ckland , 466 U.S. at 689. I ndeed, “[t ]here ar e countl ess ways to provi de effecti ve assi stance in any gi ven case. Even the best crimina l defense attor

neys would not defend a part icular cli ent in t he same way. ” Id. We affirm the di stri ct court ’s deni al of Nolen’ s peti tion for a writ of ha

beas
cor pus .