Opinion ID: 3153639
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: First Denial of Habeas Relief

Text: On November 14, 2002, the Petitioner filed a pro se request for habeas corpus relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. At that time, the Petitioner was still unaware that the DNA testing had been completed. Counsel Terri Tichenor was appointed to represent the Petitioner in the habeas proceeding in early 2003. 8 Insisting he was innocent, the Petitioner asked her to obtain the results of the DNA testing. Ms. Tichenor contacted Traci Cook, assistant prosecuting attorney, to inquire about the DNA testing. When Ms. Cook subsequently telephoned Ms. Tichenor with information, Ms. Cook said, “We have a problem.” She informed Ms. Tichenor of her discovery that the State’s DNA tests had been completed, with a report issued in April 2002. On March 31, 2003, Ms. Tichenor filed an Amended Habeas Petition, which included the additional issue of suppressed DNA results.8 Ms. Tichenor also hired a pathologist as an expert for purposes of DNA evaluation.9 An omnibus hearing was held on March 12, 2004. The court heard testimony regarding the DNA evidence from the Petitioner’s expert, as well as Lieutenant Myers of the police lab and Frances Chiafari of a genetic testing laboratory in Baltimore, Maryland. Based upon the DNA evidence available at that time, the experts could not conclude with “one 8 Eleven grounds were raised by the Petitioner in the first habeas proceeding. He asserted: involuntary plea, failure of counsel to appeal conviction, coerced confession, suppression of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, refusal of continuance, insufficiency of evidence, question of actual guilt, more severe sentence than expected, excessive sentence, and mistaken advice of counsel as to parole or probation eligibility. 9 Ms. Tichenor hired Dr. Vimal Mittal, a pathologist. Dr. Mittal was not a DNA analyst and had never worked in a DNA laboratory or conducted a DNA test. He had no training in DNA science and no qualification or experience as a DNA expert. 9 hundred percent” certainty that the Petitioner could be ruled out as a potential, minor contributor.10 Additionally, in response to the Petitioner’s assertion that the State had suppressed evidence of the favorable DNA test results prior to acceptance of the Petitioner’s plea, the State argued the plea should stand because officials were personally unaware of the April 2002, report at the time of the Petitioner’s guilty plea.11 On April 2, 2004, the circuit court denied the Petitioner’s request for habeas relief, finding the DNA results to be inconclusive. A petition for appeal to this Court was refused. 10 At the hearing, Lieutenant Myers explained he could not state definitively how many contributors were present in the mixture or whether the Petitioner might theoretically be among them. He stated that this conclusion was based upon the absence of a known profile of the individual who had deposited the primary male DNA he examined. Lacking a sample from the man whose sperm was clearly present, to reveal which DNA alleles belonged to that unknown man, he could not “one hundred percent” exclude the Petitioner from also being present somewhere in the mixture as a minor donor. 11 The State also presented the testimony of Ronald Perry, an individual arrested with the Petitioner in the Salvation Army break-in. Mr. Perry testified that the Petitioner had told him that he and a “cousin” had taken turns holding down the victim and sexually assaulting her. It was later revealed that Mr. Perry twice sought reconsideration of his sentence based upon his assistance to the State in the Petitioner’s case. Moreover, the Petitioner emphasizes that Mr. Perry’s statement was inconsistent with the victim’s statement, and the police did not attempt to investigate the allegation of a “cousin” being involved in the crime. 10