Opinion ID: 6345772
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issue 1 - Sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Mr. Padillow contends his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to assert insufficiency of the evidence. He is entitled to relief on this ground only if “upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). This standard “respects the jury’s responsibility to weigh the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony presented at trial.” Dockins, 374 F.3d at 939. In addition, the nature of a constitutional sufficiency review by a habeas court is “sharply limited.” Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 296 (1992). Thus, all of the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and the prosecution need not rule out every hypothesis except guilt. Id. We have thoroughly reviewed the trial court record. It contains sufficient victim testimony and corroborating evidence to support a guilty verdict against Mr. Padillow on 11 Appellate Case: 21-5064 Document: 010110691410 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 12 all counts. Both victims identified Mr. Padillow as their assailant. They provided sufficient detail to satisfy the elements of the crimes charged. In addition, the victims’ mothers offered corroborating testimony. A reasonable jury could have found sufficient proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellate counsel was thus not constitutionally ineffective in choosing not to raise this issue. See Davis, 943 F.3d at 1299. ii. Issue 4 - Trial attorneys’ alleged failure to search for video of the medical examination Mr. Padillow argues that appellate counsel should have argued his trial attorneys were ineffective in failing to present to the jury video of the sexual assault nurse examination of the victim. But as the district court noted, one of Mr. Padillow’s trial attorneys cross-examined the nurse responsible for the examination and elicited inconsistencies between the nurse’s written report and the physical evidence contained in the sealed rape kit. Having done so, his attorneys decided not to introduce the video, which would have been cumulative of the nurse’s cross-examination. This decision fell well within the bounds of sound trial strategy under Strickland. iii. Issue 5 - Trial attorneys’ attempts to find Regina Johnson Mr. Padillow contends appellate counsel should have asserted ineffective assistance based on his trial attorneys’ failure to find a witness named Regina Johnson. He alleges Ms. Johnson would have testified that he was alone with one of the victims for a limited amount of time. Even assuming this assertion is true, he has failed to show a reasonable probability that the trial result would have been different if Ms. Johnson had testified. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Indeed, if Ms. Johnson had testified in the way 12 Appellate Case: 21-5064 Document: 010110691410 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 13 Mr. Padillow claims, she would have helped to establish that he was alone with the victim, which would seem to bolster the prosecution’s case. Appellate counsel reasonably chose not to raise this issue. iv. Issues 6 and 7 - Defense strategy Mr. Padillow argues his appellate counsel should have argued that his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to ask any of 200 questions he says he gave them for witness examinations (issue 6), and that his trial attorneys presented a defense theory that Mr. Padillow deemed “a total lie” (issue 7). Opening Br. & Appl. for COA at 17. Neither claim holds water. First, Mr. Padillow’s asserts that his attorneys declined to use any of his 200 questions, but he has not identified a single proposed question that they failed to ask. How to conduct witness examinations lies at the heart of trial strategy, see Boyd v. Ward, 179 F.3d 904, 915 (10th Cir. 1999). Mr. Padillow has not overcome the presumption that the witness examinations conducted by his attorneys were part of a sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Second, the trial attorneys’ defense theory was premised on the testimony of a DNA expert who admitted that there were alternative explanations for the physical evidence presented by the prosecution. Mr. Padillow characterizes this theory as “a lie,” but he fails to explain how the defense theory was objectively unreasonable. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 481 (2000) (“The relevant question is not whether counsel’s choices were strategic, but whether they were reasonable.”). 13 Appellate Case: 21-5064 Document: 010110691410 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 14 In short, Mr. Padillow has not overcome the “strong presumption” that his trial attorneys’ decisions were sound strategy that fell within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Appellate counsel again reasonably chose not to raise these issues. v. Issue 8 - Trial attorneys’ failure to withdraw after Mr. Padillow’s attack and the trial court’s denial of new counsel Mr. Padillow asserts that his appellate counsel should have argued on appeal that his trial attorneys were constitutionally ineffective for failing to withdraw from representation after Mr. Padillow’s attack on Mr. Cagle. He cites no supporting authority. Also, the trial transcript completely undermines this argument. It reflects that shortly after the attack, Mr. Lee, his other attorney, performed professionally and competently, including presenting a forceful closing argument on Mr. Padillow’s behalf. We reject Mr. Padillow’s implicit suggestion that his attorneys “[were] not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. The trial transcript demonstrates the opposite. For substantially the same reasons, we reject Mr. Padillow’s related assertion that the trial court erred by not appointing new attorneys after Mr. Padillow attacked Mr. Cagle. A trial court’s determination regarding substitution of counsel is subject to the abuse of discretion standard, see United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891, 895 (4th Cir. 1994), and Mr. Padillow has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion here. 14 Appellate Case: 21-5064 Document: 010110691410 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 15 Mr. Padillow has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). His appellate counsel reasonably chose not to raise this issue.