Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1650697.html
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 13:02:39
Document Index: 352681474

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

PENA v. DICKHAUT | FindLaw
No. 13–1193.
The defense's only witness was Dr. Rebecca Brendel, a psychiatrist, who testified to Pena's mental illness based on her review of Pena's medical records and interviews she had with Pena and his sister. Relying on her record review and observations, she “concluded that ‘Pena suffered from a chronic and severe mental illness on the day of the killing’ “ and “expressed ‘serious doubt’ whether Pena could form the intent required for first-degree murder on the day he killed his girlfriend.” Pena v. Dickhaut, No. 09–12204–RWZ, 2013 WL 140262, at *3 (D.Mass. Jan.11, 2013).
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a habeas petitioner must show that the challenged state court adjudication was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or that the decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2); see also Morgan v. Dickhaut, 677 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir.2012). In this context, “unreasonable” means “some increment of incorrectness beyond error.” Morgan, 677 F.3d at 46 (internal quotation marks omitted). This standard is “highly deferential” to the state court. Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 10, –––L.Ed.2d ––––, 2013 WL 5904117, at *4 (Nov. 5, 2013) (per curiam). It requires the petitioner to “show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error ․ beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation mark omitted).
“A district court's decision to deny or grant a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is subject to de novo review.” Morgan, 677 F.3d at 46. Accordingly, like the district court, we must determine whether the state court's decision was unreasonable under the standard set forth in AEDPA. Stephens v. Hall, 294 F.3d 210, 217 (1st Cir.2002).
A. Fifth Amendment Violation
Pena argues that the state court proceedings violated the Fifth Amendment because the prosecutor improperly commented on Pena's failure to testify. It is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment “forbids ․ comment by the prosecution on the accused's silence.” Gomes v. Brady, 564 F.3d 532, 537 (1st Cir.2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965)). To determine whether a petitioner is entitled to collateral relief, “[f]irst, we determine whether the comment offended the Fifth Amendment by insinuating improperly that [the defendant's] failure to testify was evidence of guilt.” Id. (citing Griffin, 380 U.S. at 615). “Second, we ascertain whether the comment had a ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict’ such that reversal is warranted.” Id. (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)).
On direct appeal, the SJC found that the impropriety of the prosecutor's remark was a close question, but concluded that “the prosecutor did not intend his comment to be understood as a comment on Pena's failure to testify․” Commonwealth v. Pena, 455 Mass. 1, 913 N.E.2d 815, 829 (Mass.2009). The SJC also found that “the judge's prompt and thorough instructions here were sufficiently clear and complete to negate any possible prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 830 (internal quotation marks omitted).
On habeas review, the district court remarked that the question of the comment's impropriety was indeed close, and “[i]f [it] were deciding the issue in the first instance, [it] might reach a different conclusion.” Pena, 2013 WL 140262, at *6. But under the deferential standard of § 2254(d), the district court concluded that the SJC's holding was not “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,” federal law. Id. Moreover, the district court agreed with the SJC that any error was harmless. Id. It observed that “[t]he reference to Pena's silence was brief and immediately interrupted by objection; it did not form a major theme of the prosecutor's argument”; and the court's instructions to the jury were prompt and thorough. Id. Accordingly, the district court found that “Pena has failed to show that the error had a ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence’ on the verdict against him.” Id.(quoting Brecht, 507 U.S. at 623).
The district court was correct on both points. The fact that the district court disagreed with the SJC on the propriety of the remark does not mean the SJC's determination was unreasonable for the purposes of § 2254 review. In fact, this court has explained that “if it is a close question whether the state decision is in error, then the state decision cannot be an unreasonable application of federal law.” Morgan, 677 F.3d at 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the deferential standard of § 2254(d), the district court correctly allowed the SJC's decision to stand.
Furthermore, we agree with both the SJC and the district court that the error, if any, was harmless. “This court has repeatedly held that a strong, explicit and thorough curative instruction to disregard improper comments by the prosecutor is sufficient to cure any prejudice from prosecutorial misconduct.” United States v. Rodriguez, 675 F.3d 48, 63 (1st Cir.2012) (citing United States v. Riccio, 529 F.3d 40, 45 (1st Cir.2008)). The court's instructions here were more than sufficient. Indeed, we have found that even without a contemporaneous curative instruction, standard jury instructions alone can be sufficient to mitigate the prejudice of an improper comment if the comment was an “isolated instance of misconduct” and the evidence against the defendant was “compelling .” Gomes, 564 F.3d at 538–9. Here, as the district court pointed out, the challenged comment was brief and quickly interrupted, and the prosecution's case rested on the substantial evidence it presented at trial, not on an impermissible inference drawn from Pena's silence. Given the strength of the court's curative instructions, we find the alleged error to be harmless under these circumstances. We therefore affirm the district court's holding regarding the Fifth Amendment claim.
Pena claims that his attorney's ineffective assistance at trial deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. To succeed on this claim, Pena “must demonstrate both: (1) that ‘counsel's performance was deficient,’ meaning that ‘counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment’; and (2) ‘that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’ “ United States v. Valerio, 676 F.3d 237, 246 (1st Cir.2012) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).
“To demonstrate ‘prejudice,’ [Pena] must show ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ “ Id. at 57 (quoting Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 38–39, 130 S.Ct. 447, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009)). “Consequently, we must consider, on whole-record review, whether the trial might have ended differently absent the lawyer's blunder.” Ouber v. Guarino, 293 F.3d 19, 33 (1st Cir.2002).
The Supreme Court recently explained that when a federal court reviews an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under § 2254, it must use a “doubly deferential standard of review that gives both the state court and the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt.” Burt, ––– U.S. ––––, at ––––, 134 S.Ct. 10, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, at ––––, 2013 WL 5904117, at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Morgan, 677 F.3d at 47 (“[H]abeas review involves the layering of two standards. The habeas question of whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable is layered on top of the underlying standard governing the constitutional right asserted.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is an extremely difficult standard to meet, and Pena has failed to do so here.
1. The Testimony of Dr. Brendel and the Holy Family Hospital Records
2. Application of Strickland to the Omission of the HFH Records
1. It does not appear that Pena pursued any post-conviction relief at the state court level. As the district court observed, however, “Respondent does not contend that any procedural bars prevent reaching the merits of Pena's claims. It appears that the claims were properly exhausted and Pena's petition was timely filed.” Pena, 2013 WL 140262, at *2 n. 3. Accordingly, we will not address whether the absence of state post-conviction proceedings procedurally bars Pena's federal habeas petition.
2. Pena was hospitalized at HFH August 3–10, 2004. He surrendered to the police on August 27. Pena, 913 N.E.2d at 822.
3. We do not imply that the subjective intentions of Pena's trial counsel are determinative; the reasonableness test under Strickland is objective. See Rodriguez, 675 F.3d at 56.