Opinion ID: 4174704
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Strickland Prejudice Prong

Text: We turn next to the prejudice prong. When assessing Strickland prejudice, we typically ask “whether the petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” with “a reasonable probability” meaning “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Here, however, between the arguments of the litigants and the relevant case law, we are confronted with two discrete ways to frame the prejudice analysis. Vickers argues that because counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived him of his right to a jury trial and the deprivation of that right constitutes structural error, prejudice under Strickland must be presumed and Vickers is automatically entitled to relief. The Commonwealth, on the other hand, argues that prejudice cannot be presumed and the relevant inquiry is whether the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had Vickers been tried by a jury rather than a 20 judge.11 Below, we address: (a) whether prejudice even arguably could be presumed in this case; (b) if not, what prejudice inquiry is appropriate; and (c) how the proper prejudice inquiry applies to Vickers’s case. a) Whether Prejudice Should be Presumed Turning first to Vickers’s contention that Strickland prejudice can be presumed, the Supreme Court has long held that constitutional errors do not require automatic reversal, and that courts may apply a “harmless error” analysis to determine whether the mistake affected the outcome of the trial. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967). The Supreme Court has also held, however, that there are certain errors, deemed “structural” errors that so “affect[] the framework within which the trial proceeds” that they cannot 11 Vickers contends that because the Commonwealth addressed only Strickland’s performance prong in its opening brief, it has waived any argument based on the prejudice prong. Although it is generally correct that an issue not raised in an appellant’s opening brief is waived, Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994), we may not relieve Vickers of his burden to prove both deficiency and prejudice to obtain habeas relief because federal courts are only empowered to grant the writ “on the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). We therefore reject Vickers’s contention that he is automatically entitled to relief if he can demonstrate deficient performance, and we will proceed to address whether Vickers was prejudiced by his counsel’s ineffective performance. 21 be subject to harmless error analysis. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991). For example, the Supreme Court has identified the denial of the right to counsel of a defendant’s choice, United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 149-50 (2006), the denial of the right to a public trial, Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 49-50 & n.9 (1984), and the denial of the right to self-representation, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 177 n.8 (1984), as errors “with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate” such that reversal is required without further analysis when they occur, Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150. See also United States v. Lewis, 802 F.3d 449, 461-62 (3d Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Smith, J., concurring) (reviewing categories of cases constituting structural error). Even accepting Vickers’s premise that prejudice may be presumed when counsel’s deficient performance results in structural error,12 Vickers would not be entitled to such a presumption here because no structural error resulted from his counsel’s deficiency. 12 This issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 809 (2017), and held oral argument on April 19, 2017, to address the question “whether a defendant asserting ineffective assistance that results in a structural error must, in addition to demonstrating deficient performance, show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness.” See Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 3, Weaver v. Massachusetts, No. 16-240 (S. Ct. Aug. 18, 2016), 2016 WL 4474568. Given our disposition of Vickers’s claim, we have no cause to hold his case c.a.v. pending a decision in Weaver. 22 Whether the deprivation of the jury trial right itself constitutes structural error is a question that neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has squarely addressed. The Supreme Court has discussed the “profound” importance of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, observing that the right “reflect[s] a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power” in our criminal justice system. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968). And where a defendant has been completely denied the right to a jury trial because neither the trial court nor his attorney informs him of that right, at least one Court of Appeals has held the error is structural and prejudice should be presumed when evaluating an ineffective assistance claim. See McGurk v. Stenberg, 163 F.3d 470, 474 (8th Cir. 1998); see also Miller v. Dormire, 310 F.3d 600, 603 (8th Cir. 2002). Here, however, Vickers does not and cannot claim he suffered a total deprivation of his right to a jury trial as a result of his counsel’s deficiency. Indeed, the record is unambiguous that Vickers was apprised of his right to a jury trial because the state court found credible Vickers’s counsel’s testimony that he and Vickers discussed his right to a jury trial on multiple occasions—a finding we must presume to be correct, even on de novo review, Breakiron, 642 F.3d at 131; Jacobs, 395 F.3d at 100. Rather, Vickers argues that his waiver was rendered unintelligent and involuntary either because counsel failed to secure an on-therecord waiver or because counsel did not specifically apprise him of all aspects of a jury trial, he was unaware of the requirement of juror unanimity when he waived. The premise of this second argument is dubious at best, given the PCRA 23 court’s fact-finding to which we must defer.13 Id. Even if we engage both arguments, however, they fail on the merits under controlling case law. We have previously held, consistent with other Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue, that an on-therecord waiver, while probative and strongly encouraged, is not a prerequisite to a knowing and voluntary waiver and, hence, is not constitutionally required. Parrott, 476 F.2d at 1062; United States v. Boynes, 515 F.3d 284, 286 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 888 F.2d 519, 527 (7th Cir. 1989); see also Lilly, 536 F.3d at 197-98 (noting in the Rule 23 context that, while strongly advisable, an on-therecord waiver colloquy is not a constitutional requirement). As relevant here, then, its omission is not per se constitutional error, much less structural error. Nor has the Supreme Court or any Court of Appeals held to date that a defendant must be specifically apprised of the requirement of juror unanimity in order to knowingly and intelligently waive his jury-trial right. On the contrary, the Courts of Appeals that have confronted that argument have rejected it. See Sowell v. Bradshaw, 372 F.3d 821, 833-34 13 Implicit in the state court’s credibility determinations is its finding that Vickers was aware that any jury verdict would have to be unanimous. For example, the state court credited counsel’s testimony that Vickers “understood the difference between the two [types of trials],” App. 100, and rejected as incredible Vickers’s testimony, which included his assertion that he mistakenly believed at the time he could be convicted by only a majority of the jurors. 24 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that knowledge of the juror unanimity requirement is not constitutionally required in order for a defendant to give a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury trial); U.S. ex rel. Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F.2d 1174, 1180 (7th Cir. 1983) (holding the Constitution requires only that the defendant understand “that the choice confronting him was, on the one hand, to be judged by a group of people from the community, and on the other hand, to have his guilt or innocence determined by a judge”).14 And even Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, governing the necessary procedures to ensure that a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary, does not require that a defendant be specifically apprised of the juror-unanimity requirement but only of his general “right to a jury trial,” to relinquish that right in connection with a plea waiver. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. PaganOrtega, 372 F.3d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 2004) (concluding that not even a Rule 11 violation, let alone a constitutional violation, occurred when defendant was not informed of his right to a unanimous jury as part of his plea colloquy). While this 14 Vickers relies on the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Martin, 704 F.2d 267, 273 (6th Cir. 1983), as support for his argument that a defendant must be informed of the unanimity requirement to give a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury trial. In Sowell, however, the Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected this reading of Martin, holding that Martin did not “establish[] a constitutional requirement that the defendant understand that the verdict must be unanimous.” Sowell, 372 F.3d at 833. 25 Court has not yet opined on whether the failure to apprise a defendant of the unanimity requirement would render a jurytrial waiver constitutionally infirm, it is sufficient for today’s purposes to observe that where there is a substantial question that such even results in constitutional error, it assuredly does not result in structural error. See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7 (1999) (explaining that structural errors are “a limited class of fundamental constitutional errors that ‘defy analysis by harmless error standards.’” (quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309). Our conclusion that prejudice must be demonstrated, not presumed, in this circumstance is further supported by the approach the Supreme Court and this Court have taken in addressing similar claims in the past. In Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), the Supreme Court was presented with an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to inform a petitioner of the parole consequences of his guilty plea, and despite petitioner’s allegation that this lack of complete information about the right that he was relinquishing made his entire guilty plea “involuntary” and “unintelligent,” id. at 56—an allegation closely tracking Vickers’s—the Court explicitly held that a prejudice analysis was necessary before relief could be granted and proceeded to address that prong of the petitioner’s Strickland claim, id. at 59. Likewise, in United States v. Lilly, we were presented with a claim of ineffective assistance nearly identical to Vickers’s when a petitioner, who had been in the courtroom when counsel waived his jury-trial right in favor of a bench trial and who had signed a formal waiver form only after the trial, asserted that he had not been fully apprised of his right to a jury trial and thus had not waived it knowingly and 26 voluntarily. 536 F.3d at 192-93. To determine whether petitioner had established ineffective assistance, we did not simply presume prejudice but performed a traditional Strickland prejudice analysis before ultimately concluding that he was not entitled to relief. Id. at 196. Thus, while we leave for another day whether a total failure to inform a defendant of his right to a jury trial could give rise to a claim of structural error, cf. McGurk, 163 F.3d at 474, we hold, consistent with Hill and Lilly, where a defendant has been apprised of his basic right to a jury trial, counsel’s failure to inform him of certain aspects of that right does not give rise to structural error. And, absent structural error, there is no colorable argument that prejudice should be presumed in this case. b) Determining the Proper Prejudice Test Having concluded that a showing of prejudice is required, we next address what that showing should be. The Commonwealth argues in favor of the approach we articulated in Lilly, where we held that a petitioner who was convicted upon a bench trial and claimed prejudice as a result of his counsel’s failure to ensure a valid jury-trial waiver must show a reasonable probability that “in the absence of counsel’s advice, another fact finder (i.e., a jury) would have been reasonably likely to arrive at a different outcome.” 536 F.3d at 196. Although Lilly correctly reflects that we must address the prejudice question as part of our Strickland analysis, a trio of Supreme Court cases explaining the appropriate inquiry in similar circumstances illustrates that a modification to Lilly’s prejudice test is necessary. First, in Hill, as noted above, the Court considered an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on counsel’s 27 deficiently informing petitioner of the consequences of his guilty plea. 474 U.S. at 55. When addressing Strickland’s prejudice prong, the Court did not focus on whether counsel’s deficient performance caused the outcome of the proceeding to change—i.e., the court did not speculate as to whether petitioner would have been convicted had he gone to trial instead of pleading—but instead asked “whether counsel’s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process.” Id. at 59. Because the appropriate focus went to the process that led to petitioner forfeiting a constitutional right, the Court held that the petitioner could demonstrate prejudice if he could show a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Id. In Roe v. Flores-Ortega, the Court applied similar reasoning when addressing the appropriate prejudice inquiry for a petitioner alleging that counsel’s deficient performance led him to forfeit his right to a direct appeal of his conviction. 528 U.S. 470, 475 (2000). The Court again framed the inquiry in terms of the process leading up to the petitioner’s decision to forego a judicial proceeding to which he was constitutionally entitled, holding that the petitioner could demonstrate prejudice if he could show that his counsel’s ineffective performance led to his not pursuing an appeal that he “otherwise would have taken.” Id. at 484. Because the petitioner had been deprived of the proceeding altogether, the Court explained that it would be “unfair to require a[] . . . defendant to demonstrate that his hypothetical appeal might have had merit” and a showing that “but for counsel’s deficient conduct, he would have appealed” was all that Strickland requires. Id. at 486. 28 Most recently in Lafler, the Supreme Court confirmed that this process-based analysis, focusing on whether a petitioner lost his ability to exercise a constitutional protection he otherwise would have invoked, is necessary to evaluate prejudice for ineffective assistance claims alleging a defect in the process leading up to a judicial proceeding. 566 U.S. at 169. In Lafler, the petitioner claimed ineffective assistance when his counsel advised him against accepting a guilty plea by erroneously insisting that the prosecution would be unable to establish an element of the crime for which he was charged. 556 U.S. at 161. Thus, Lafler presented the inverse of Hill as, rather than being induced to accept a guilty plea as a result of counsel’s ineffectiveness, the petitioner in Lafler alleged that his counsel’s deficient performance forced him to stand trial and receive a harsher sentence than he would have had he accepted the plea. Id. at 163-64. The Court explicitly rejected the Government’s argument that there could be no Strickland prejudice because “[a] fair trial wipes clean any deficient performance by defense counsel during plea bargaining,” and held that the petitioner could show prejudice if he could demonstrate that but for counsel’s ineffective assistance, “he and the trial court would have accepted the guilty plea.” Id. at 174. Although acknowledging that the “[t]he goal of a just result is not divorced from the reliability of a conviction,” the Court in Lafler made explicit the principle underlying its decisions in Hill and Flores-Ortega—that when evaluating prejudice in the context of a pre-trial error that changed the nature of the subsequent proceedings, the “question is not the fairness or reliability of the trial but the fairness and regularity of the processes that preceded it, which caused the defendant to lose 29 benefits he would have received in the ordinary course but for counsel’s ineffective assistance.” Id. at 169. Lafler requires us to revisit the prejudice analysis we applied in Lilly. At the time Lilly was decided, it was apparent that a Strickland prejudice inquiry was necessary for certain claims of ineffective assistance that led to a deprivation of pre-trial process rights, but it was not clear how broadly the Court intended to apply the prejudice test it announced in Hill and Flores-Ortega. While those cases addressed the appropriate way to frame Strickland prejudice when counsel’s ineffective assistance caused a defendant to forego a judicial proceeding altogether—i.e., a trial in Hill and a direct appeal in Flores-Ortega—they did not squarely address the situation presented in Lilly, Lafler, and the case before us here, where, despite counsel’s pre-trial ineffective assistance, the defendant received, and ultimately was convicted in, an error-free trial. In light of this ambiguity, we did not extend Hill and Flores-Ortega to the circumstances before us in Lilly, and reverted to the language the Court had used in Strickland, that a finding of prejudice requires “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Lilly, 536 F.3d at 196 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). After Lafler, however, there is no longer any ambiguity about the proper prejudice test in this situation. Lafler makes clear that the process-based test of Hill and Flores-Ortega is not limited to situations in which counsel’s ineffectiveness prevented a judicial proceeding from occurring at all, but also applies when the defendant ultimately received a fair adjudication, so long as counsel’s ineffectiveness affects not the propriety of the adjudicatory 30 proceeding itself, but “the fairness and regularity of the processes that preceded it.” Lafler, 566 U.S. at 169. And when Hill, Flores-Ortega, and Lafler are read together, there is no question that where a defendant claims ineffective assistance based on a pre-trial process that caused him to forfeit a constitutional right, the proper prejudice inquiry is whether the defendant can demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s ineffectiveness, he would have opted to exercise that right. We therefore revise our prejudice test set forth in 15 Lilly, and turn to the dispositive question here: whether Vickers has met his burden by establishing on this record a reasonable probability that but for his counsel’s failure to ensure a proper waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to be tried before a jury, he would have exercised that right. c) Application of the Proper Prejudice Test 15 Our holding regarding the appropriate prejudice inquiry in this context, which merely aligns Lilly with the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Lafler, does not necessitate en banc review. As occurs from time to time, “a panel of our Court may decline to follow a prior decision of our Court without the necessity of an en banc decision when the prior decision conflicts with a Supreme Court decision.” United States v. Tann, 577 F.3d 533, 541 (3d Cir. 2009); see also United States v. City of Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187, 192 n.3 (3d Cir. 1980) (“As an inferior court in the federal hierarchy, we are, of course, compelled to apply the law announced by the Supreme Court as we find it on the date of our decision.”). 31 Applying this prejudice analysis to the facts of this case, we conclude that Vickers has not met his burden. Although counsel was deficient in failing to ensure that Vickers had properly waived his right to a jury trial before proceeding with a bench trial, the record is devoid of any credible evidence that Vickers otherwise would have opted for a jury trial and affirmatively indicates that he made an informed, strategic decision to proceed with a bench trial after numerous consultations with his counsel. Even though we review the state court’s legal conclusions de novo, we continue to defer under AEDPA to its factual and credibility findings, Jacobs, 395 F.3d at 100, and here, the state court found Vickers’s counsel credible when he testified that he and Vickers discussed the possibility of a jury trial each time they spoke, that he explained to Vickers that a jury trial would mean that “12 men and women decide the facts of the case as opposed to a judge deciding the facts,” and that even on the morning of the trial he reminded Vickers that he was facing “serious charges” and could still ask for a jury trial, but Vickers “indicated he wanted to go forward.” App. 95, 98. Most importantly, counsel testified that he explained to Vickers the strategic advantages he perceived in pursuing a bench trial, i.e., he believed a bench trial was Vickers’s best chance to be acquitted on the most serious charge he faced— aggravated assault; it would be difficult for the Commonwealth to prove that Vickers had the requisite intent to commit aggravated assault based on just one punch; and, when pursuing this theory, there would be a “tactical advantage” to selecting a bench trial because a judge was more likely than a jury to appreciate this “narrow legal issue.” App. 107, 109. Counsel discussed this strategy with Vickers, 32 warned Vickers that there was risk inherent in choosing a bench trial because the “courtroom can be a conservative with personal injuries,” App. 95, and recommended nonetheless that Vickers proceed by way of bench trial. Vickers’s responses led his counsel to believe Vickers was aware of his right to proceed by way of jury trial, that he “understood the difference,” between a jury trial and a bench trial, App. 100, and that he was choosing for strategic reasons to proceed with a bench trial. The only evidence in the record to the contrary, Vickers’s testimony that he repeatedly requested a jury trial and did not know he had a right to a jury trial until he was preparing his appeal, was deemed “not credible” by the PCRA court. App. 176. Thus, although counsel erroneously failed to ensure that Vickers waived on the record and, even assuming counsel’s deficiency left Vickers unaware of the requirement of juror unanimity, Vickers has not established on this record a “reasonable probability” that, but for counsel’s deficiency, Vickers would have elected to proceed by way of jury trial. Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate the prejudice Strickland requires in this circumstance, and his habeas petition must be denied. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the District Court’s order granting Vickers a writ of habeas corpus and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 33