NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 05- 9004 & 06- 9005

___________ SA H A RR I S RO LLI N S,

A ppel l anti n N o. 06- 9005 v . M AR TI N H OR N, Commi s s i o n e r , Pe n n s y l v a n i a Dep a r t me n to f Corr e c t i o n s ; CO NN ER BL A I N E, J R. , Sup e r i nt e nd e ntof the St a t e Cor r e c t i on a l I ns t i tut i on a tG r e e ne ; J O SEPH P. M AZ UR KI E WI CZ , S u p e r i n t e n d e n to f th e S t a t e Co rr e c t i o n a l I n s t i tu t i o n a tRo c k v i e w,

A ppel l ant s i n N o. 05- 9004

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. N o. 00- 1288) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J . C ur t i s J oyner

____________________________________

A r gued J une 15, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , G R E E N B E R G , A N D C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y7, 2010)

___________ 

### Thom a s W . Dol ge nos , Es q. ( Argue d) He l e n T. Kane , Es q. Of ficeof the Dis tric t Att orney Thre e South PennSquare Phi l a de lphi a , PA 19107 Couns e lfor

Appe l l ant s / Cr os s - Appe l l e e s Mart i n Horn, Conne r Bl a i ne , and J os eph Mazurkie wiczT he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on pr ovi des a compr ehens i ve ac countof the under l y i ng 1 cr i m e and the pr ocedur al hi s t ory . See R ol l i ns v. H orn, 2005 W L 1806504, at*1 ( E . D . Pa. Ju ly2 6 , 2 0 0 5 ). 2 

### Matthe w C. Lawry , Es q. ( Argue d) Bi l ly H. Nol a s , Es q. D ef en d er A sso ciatio no f

P h ilad elp h ia F ed eral C ap ital H ab eas C o rp u s Un it T h e C urtis C enter, S u ite 5 4 5 West In d ep en d en ce S qu are West Phi l a de lphi a , PA 19106 Edwar d M. Dunham , Jr . , Es q. D u an e M o rris 30 So uth 1 7 Stre et

th 

### Un it ed Plaz a Phi l a de lphi a , PA 19103 Couns e lfor

Appe l l e e / Cr os s - Appe l l ant Saharri s Rol l i ns

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM I n thi s appea l and cr os s - appea l i n a capi t al cas e, the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a and Saha r r i s R ol l i ns as k us t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s part i al gr antof R o lli n s’ p e tit io n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s f

iled p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . W e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. O n M ar ch 5, 1987, R ol l i ns w as convi ct ed bya j uryi n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas o f P h i l a d e l p h i a C o u n ty o f f i r s td e g r e e m u r d e ra n d r e l a t e d o f f e n s e s . T h e n e x td a y,

13

fol l ow i ng a s epar at e pena l tyhear i ng, the j uryfound thattw o aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s ou tw ei gh ed o ne m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ance. Th e C ou rtof C om m on P l eas den i ed R oll i ns’ p o s t- v e rd ic t m o tio n s a n d s e n te n c e d h im to d e a th f o r t h e f ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r c o n v ic tio n . Ro l l i n s ’ p o s t - tr i a l mo t i o n s we r e d e n i e d . On d i r e c ta p p e a l , th e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our taff i r m ed R ol l i ns ’ convi ct i on and s ent ence . See C om m onw eal th v. R ol l i ns , 580 A. 2 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 5 ( P a . 1 9 9 0 ) . Th e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me Co u r ta l s o r e j e c t e d th e c l a i ms r ai s ed i n R ol l i ns ’ PostC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( “PC R A ”) pet i t i on. See C om m onw eal t h v. R o llin s , 7 3 8 A .2 d 4 3 5 (P a . 1 9 9 9 ). I n M ar ch 2000, R ol l i ns fi l ed a pe t i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, al l egi ng, i nt eral i a, thatthe pr os ecut orexer ci s ed per empt orys tr i kes i n vi ol at i on of B at s on v. K e n tu c k y , 4 7 6 U .S . 7 9 (1 9 8 6 ), th a t h is a tto rn e yw a s in e f f e c tiv e a t th e g u ilta n d p e n a lty phas es of tr i al , and thatthe j uryi ns truct i ons vi ol at ed M i l l s v. M ary l and, 486 U . S. 367 ( 1988) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed habe as r el i ef, fi ndi ng thatR ol l i ns ’ att orneyr ender ed c o n stitu tio n a llyd e f

icie n t as sis tan c e a t th e p e n a ltyp h a se a n d th a t th e trial c o u rt im p ro p e rly in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t itm u st u n a n im o u slya g re e o n m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s b e f o re it c o u l d c o n s i d e rth e m a ts e n t e n c i n g . S e e Ro l l i n s v . Ho rn , 2 0 0 5 WL 1 8 0 6 5 0 4 , a t* 4 5 ( E . D. Pa. J ul y26, 2005) . A s t o al l ot hercl ai m s , how ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed r el i ef a nd d e c lin e d to iss u e a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty . S e e id . R o lli n s f iled a m o tio n p u rsu a n t to Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 59( e) , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed. See R ol l i ns v. H o rn , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 5 0 4 3 0 7 (E .D . P a . A u g . 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 ).T h e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s a p p e a l w a s d o c k e te d in th is C o u rt a t C .A . N o . 0 5 -9 0 0 4 . 2 R o llin s ’ c ro s s -a p p e a l w a s d o c k e te d h e re a s C .A . N o . 0 6 -9 0 0 5 . 4 B oth R ol l i ns and the C om m onw eal th t i m el yappea l ed. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on 2 under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. R ol l i ns ’ pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus w as fi l ed a f ter A p ril 1 9 9 6 a n d is th e re f o re su b jec t to th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 (“ A E D P A ” ). W e g ra n ted R o lli n s’ r e q u e st f o r c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty ( “C O A ”) w i th r egar d t o t he B at s on cl ai m and the al l egat i on thathi s att orneyr ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance atthe gui l tphas e byfai l i ng t o adequa t el yi nves t i gat e and pr es ent s er ol ogi cal evi dence and evi dence conce rni ng w hi ch hand the murde r erus ed t o hol d the g u n . W e w i l l begi n byaddr es s i ng the i s s ues on w hi ch w e gr ant ed a CO A beca us e they i n v o l v e e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g f i r s ti n t i me , a tth e g u i l tp h a s e o f tr i a l . I n Ba t s o n , th e S u p r e me C our thel d thatdi s cr i m i nat oryus e of a per empt orychal l enge dur i ng j urys el ect i on vi ol at es E qual Pr ot ect i on. N ot abl y , “a t i m el yobj ect i on i s r equi r ed t o pr es erve [a B at s on] i s s ue on appe al . ” A bu- J amal v. H orn, 520 F. 3d 272, 284 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , vaca t ed and re m a n d e d o n o th e r g ro u n d s s u b n o m ., B e a rd v . A b u -J a m a l, 1 3 0 S . C t. 1 1 3 4 (2 0 1 0 ). R o lli n s’ a tto rn e yf

a iled to m a k e su c h a n o b jec tio n . A lth o u g h th e p ro se c u to r’s a lleg e d ly i m pr operus e of pe r empt orys tr i kes w as br i efl ydi s cus s ed atvoi rdi r e, R ol l i ns ’ att orney nevercal l ed fora rul i ng r egar di ng the B at s on i s s ue. A ccor di ngl y , byfai l i ng t o “gi ve[] t he tr i al j udge an opportuni tyt o pr om pt l ycons i deral l eged mi s conductdur i ng j urys el ect i on5

and deve l op a compl et e r ecor d, ” R ol l i ns has for fei t ed thi s cl ai m . I d. at281- 82 ( footnot es o m itte d ). R ol l i ns al s o al l eged thathi s att orneyper form ed i neff ect i vel yatthe gui l tphas e of tr i al byfai l i ng t o ar gue thatR ol l i ns ’ bl ood type ( type O ) di d notm at ch the bl ood type evi dence col l ect ed bythe pol i ce ( type A ) , and thatan ey ew i tnes s t o the murde rt ol d pol i ce thatthe ki l l erhel d t he gun i n hi s l efthand w hi l e w i tnes s es w ho s aw R ol l i ns fi r e a gun i n a se p a ra te s h o o tin g in c id e n t cla im e d th a t h e h e ld th e g u n in h is rig h t h a n d . T o p re v a il, R o lli n s m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h is a tto rn e y ’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s s o d e f

icie n t th a t itf

e ll bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s underpr evai l i ng pr ofes s i onal nor m s and tha tthe de fi c i e ntpe r fo r manc e w a s pr e j ud i c i a l . Se e Str i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ng t on , 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). It is a p p ro p ria te to e v a lu a te th e p re ju d ice p ro n g f

irst “ b e c a u se it i s pr efe r abl e t o avoi d pas s i ng j udgm enton couns el ’ s per form ance w hen pos s i bl e. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . C ro s s , 3 0 8 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatR ol l i ns di d nots uffe rpr ej udi ce i n l i ghtof the s i gni fi cantevi dence of hi s gui l t . See Str i ckl and, 466 U . S. at696 ( “a ve r di ctorconcl us i on onl yw eakl ys uppor t ed bythe r ecor d i s m or e l i kel yt o have be en af fec t ed byerr or s than one w i th overw hel m i ng r ecor d s uppor t . ”) . V i ol et a C i ntr on, w ho w as pr es entw i th the vi ct i m and the s hoot eri n a s m al l r oom w hen the murde roccurr ed, t es t i fi ed thats he had s een Rol l i ns on pr evi ous occa s i ons ( i ncl udi ng ear l i erthatday ) , thats he knew hi m t o be a fr i end of he rhus band’ s , and thathe w as the ki l l er . I n addi t i on, V i ol et a had i dent i fi ed6

R ol l i ns i n a pol i ce l i neup al m os tone mont h aft erthe murde r . L i kew i s e, N i l da C i ntr on, A ngel R i ver a, and D al i a C i ntr on, w ho al l s aw the perpetr at oras he fl ed fr om the s cene of th e s h o o tin g , e a c h p ic k e d R o llin s o u t o f a p o lic e lin e u p a n d id e n tif ie d h im a t tr ia l. Fur therm or e, D al i a w as abl e t o i dent i fyR ol l i ns fr om a phot o arr ay . V i ol et a’ s hus band, J os e C arr as qui l l o, al s o i dent i fi ed R ol l i ns beca us e he w as the onl yper s on w i th w hom C arr asquil l o sw app ed co cai ne fo r m et ham ph et am i ne, w hich R oll i ns soug ht t o d o just pr i ort o the murde r . C arr as qui l l o pi cked outR ol l i ns fr om a phot o arr ay , and further tes tifie d th a t af

ter th e m u rd e r R o lli n s th re a ten e d to h a rm h im if h e d id n o t ch a n g e h is t es t i m onyand t el l V i ol et a nott o t es t i fy . Si m i l ar l y , a w i tnes s w ho had s pentt i m e i n pr i s on w i th R ol l i ns t es t i fi ed thatR ol l i ns confe s s ed t o the murde rand i ndi cat ed thathe pl anned to se n d p eo p le t o k il l V ioleta. F inally , the th ree w itn esse s to a sep ara te sh o o ti n g , w h ere the murde rw eapon w as us ed, i dent i fi ed R ol l i ns as the s hoot er . G i ven thi s evi dence , R ol l i ns has notes t abl i s hed a “ r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforcouns el ’ s ” al l eged fai l ur e atthe gui l tphas e t o adequa t el yi nves t i gat e and pr es entbl ood type evi dence and evi dence conce r ni ng w hi ch hand the murde r erus ed t o hol d the gun, “the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Str i ckl and, 466 U . S. at694. A s t o penal typhas e i neff ect i venes s , how ever , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tt hat R o lli n s is e n tit led to h a b e a s re lief. R o lli n s’ a tto rn e yp e rf o rm e d d e f

icie n tlyb yf

a ili n g to adequa t el yi nves t i gat e and pr es entevi dence of m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . See Tay l orv. H o rn , 5 0 4 F .3 d 4 1 6 , 4 5 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t in th e p e n a ltyp h a se o f a d e a th7

penal tycas e “c ouns el has an ‘ obl i gat i on t o conducta thor ough i nves t i gat i on’ for m it igating ev iden ce . ”) (q u o ti n g W il li am s v . T ay lor, 5 2 9 U . S . 3 6 2 , 3 9 6 (20 0 0 )). In p a r t i c u l a r , Ro l l i n s ’ a t t o r n e yd i d n o tb e g i n t o p r e p a r e mi t i g a t i o n e v i d e n c e u n t i l 4 : 3 0 p . m. o n th e d a yb e f

o re th e p e n a ltyp ro c e e d in g c o m m e n c e d , d id n o t atte m p t to sp e a k w ith R ol l i ns ’ s i s t erw ho had bee n pr es entthr oughoutthe tr i al , and di d nototherw i s e s eek “[i ] nform at i on conce r ni ng [R ol l i ns ’ ] backgr ound, educa t i on, empl oym entr ecor d, m ent al a nd e mot i on a l s t a bi l i ty , fa mi l yr e l a t i on s hi ps , a nd the l i ke . ” Bobbyv. V a n Hook, 13 0 S. C t . 13, 17 ( 2009) ( ci t i ng A B A gui del i nes thatw er e i n eff ecti n 1987) ; s ee a l s o J erm yn v. H orn, 266 F. 3d 257, 308 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng thatcouns el ’ s conductfel l bel ow the stan d ard s req u ir ed fo r reaso n ab le rep rese n tat ion w h ere “c o u n sel an d h is l aw clerk a d m itte d th a t th e yb e g a n p re p a ri n g f o r t h e p e n a lty p h a s e th e n ig h t b e f o re it b e g a n .” ). W e al s o concl ude thatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythatthe r es ul tof the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r enti f the j uryhad hea r d the evi dence that w as p rese n ted a t th e P C R A p roc ee d ing . S ee B o n d v . B ea rd, 53 9 F . 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 8 5 (3d C ir . 2008) ( not i ng thatpr ej udi ce e xi s t s i f “‘ ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butfor couns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s . . . ’ one j ur or[w oul d have] vot ed t o i m pos e a s ent ence of lif e im p ri s o n m e n t r a th e r t h a n th e d e a th p e n a lty.” ) ( q u o tin g S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 )) . T hatevi dence i ncl uded ac count s of abus e and tr agedyi n R ol l i ns ’ chi l dhood, as w el l as e xp e r top i ni on s a bo utRol l i ns ’ ment a l de fi c i e nc i e s . Se e , e . g. , Port e rv. M c Col l um, 13 0 S. C t . 447, 453 ( 2009) ( hol di ng thatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o uncoverandB eca us e w e conc l ude thatR ol l i ns ’ s ent ence m us tbe vac at ed due t o i neff ect i ve 3 a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l, his M ill s c laim is m o o t. 8 p re se n t an ye v id e n c e o f p e tit io n e r’s m e n tal h e a lth o r m e n tal im p a irm e n t, his f a m ily b ac k g rou n d , o r his m il it aryserv ice); see a lso K ind ler v. H o rn, 54 2 F . 3 d 7 0 , 8 3 -87 (3d C ir . 2008) ( concl udi ng thatSt r i ckl and s t andar d w as s at i s fi ed bas ed on af fi davi t s fr om p eti ti o n er’s co u n sel, h is pa ren ts, h is si ster, a f ri en d , an d a p sy ch o log istan d a p sy ch iatri st) , r ev’ d on ot hergr ounds s ub nom . , B ear d v. K i ndl er , 130 S. C t . 612 ( 2009) . T her efor e, t he sta te c o u rts’ d e n ial o f

R o lli n s’ p e n a ltyp h a se in e f f e c tiv e n e ss c laim w a s a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f

e s ta b lis h e d f

e d e ra l la w , a s d e te rm in e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt . I n s um , w e conc l ude thatR ol l i ns w as deni ed ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el dur i ng th e p e n a l typ h a s e , b u tf i n d n o me r i ti n th e r e ma i n d e ro f h i s c l a i ms . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we

3 w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng R ol l i ns ’ pet i t i on fora condi t i onal w r i tof habe as corpus and or der i ng the C om m onw eal th t o ei therconducta new s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g w ith in 1 8 0 d a y s o r s e n te n c e R o llin s to lif e im p ri s o n m e n t.