Opinion ID: 626847
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Subclaim (g)

Text: In subclaim (g), Mr. Trujillo argues that his attorney was ineffective because he did not impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses at trial. The district court held that he did not exhaust this claim in the state courts. In his brief to the CCA challenging the state trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Mr. Trujillo argued that his attorney failed to interview prosecution witnesses and obtain criminal histories. He also briefly added that his attorney’s failure to investigate prevented effective crossexamination of prosecution witnesses. This latter point became subclaim (g) in Mr. Trujillo’s § 2254 petition. The CCA did not specifically address the cross-examination issue. It did address the failure to investigate issue and held that Mr. Trujillo failed to demonstrate that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed Mr. Trujillo’s subclaim (g) because the ineffective cross-examination issue was not exhausted in the state courts. The court explained that Mr. Trujillo presented this § 2254 claim in a different manner than he did in his brief to the CCA. Although Mr. Trujillo’s limited reference to the cross-examination issue before 9 the CCA raises concern about exhaustion, we conclude it is debatable whether the district court’s exhaustion conclusion is correct.3 Nonetheless, when a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claim, to receive a COA the petitioner must also show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. “In reaching this determination, we will not delve into the merits of the claim, but instead will determine only whether the petitioner has facially alleged the denial of a constitutional right.” Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249, 1259 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). Mr. Trujillo has failed to allege a constitutional violation. His allegation of ineffective cross-examination is conclusory and unsupported by sufficient facts or argument showing that, but for his counsel’s alleged ineffective interrogation of witnesses at trial, there is a reasonable probability he would not have been convicted, one of the critical requirements of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See Cummings v. Sirmons, 506 F.3d 1211, 1233-34 (10th Cir. 2007) (conclusory allegations are not sufficient to satisfy Strickland). Therefore, we deny COA on subclaim (g). B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 3 The district court also found that subclaim (g) was procedurally defaulted because Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(VI) and (VII) generally prohibit successive post-conviction Rule 35 motions and two such motions were filed. Although two Rule 35 motions from Mr. Trujillo appear in the record with different date stamps, these motions are identical, and both have the same date listed next to Mr. Trujillo’s signature. Further, the CCA appears to have considered only one Rule 35 motion. Therefore, whether this issue was procedurally defaulted also is debatable. 10 To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show both (1) constitutionally deficient performance and (2) resulting prejudice by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the case would be different. See Strickland, 466 U.S.at 687. If the applicant is unable to show either “deficient performance” or “sufficient prejudice,” the ineffective assistance claim necessarily fails. Hooks v. Workman, 606 F.3d 715, 724 (10th Cir. 2010). “[O]ur review of counsel’s performance under the first prong of Strickland is a highly deferential one.” Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159, 1168 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 763 (2011). “[W]e indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance” and presume that counsel’s conduct is sound strategy. Welch v. Workman, 639 F.3d 980, 1010 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted), cert denied, 132 S. Ct. 292 (2011). “To be deficient, the performance must be outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. . . . [I]t must have been completely unreasonable, not merely wrong.” Hooks, 606 F.3d at 723 (citation omitted) (quotations omitted). To show prejudice, the applicant must establish that “counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. at 724 (quotations omitted). “Establishing a reasonable probability of a different outcome requires something less than a showing counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case. Instead, a reasonable probability is one sufficient to 11 undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (citation omitted) (quotations omitted). “[M]ere speculation is not sufficient to satisfy this burden.” Byrd, 645 F.3d at 1168. 1. Subclaim (a): Failure to Depose or Call Detective Berrera to Testify Mr. Trujillo argues that his attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel because he did not depose or call Detective Berrera to testify. He claims that Detective Berrera would have explained the connection between the three victims and certain drug dealers whom Mr. Trujillo implicated while working as a confidential informant. This testimony, he asserts, would have proved to the jury that the victims had a motive to set him up and stage the charged assaults. The record indicates that Mr. Trujillo’s attorney investigated this connection between the drug dealers and the victims and presented some of this information at trial. Mr. Trujillo’s attorney subpoenaed Detective Berrera and attempted to obtain the confidential informant reports relating to Mr. Trujillo’s work. Further, Mr. Trujillo testified as to the connection between the victims and the drug dealers. Because Mr. Trujillo’s attorney investigated the connection between the victims and the drug dealers, and because Mr. Trujillo has failed to prove that, but for his attorney’s failure to depose and call Detective Berrera to testify, the result of his trial would have been different, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate whether the district court properly rejected this claim under the Strickland standards. 12 2. Subclaim (b): Failure to Obtain Exculpatory DNA Evidence from the Seat of Mr. Trujillo’s Truck Mr. Trujillo claims that his attorney should have obtained and presented DNA evidence from Mr. Trujillo’s personal truck. One of the victims testified at trial that Mr. Trujillo offered her a ride in his red or blue work truck, drove her to a secluded area, and, after a struggle, raped her. Mr. Trujillo, on the other hand, testified that he had consensual sex with the victim in his white, personal pickup truck. Mr. Trujillo argues that there was DNA evidence from one of the victims on the seat of his personal white pickup truck and that this evidence would have proved that the victim was lying when she said that Mr. Trujillo gave her a ride in a red or blue work truck. This evidence, he contends, would also prove that the victims framed him for the attacks. Mr. Trujillo explained this theory at trial when he testified that he and the victim had consensual sex, after which the victim saved the condom, spread Mr. Trujillo’s DNA on her pants and body, and then roughed herself up, all in an attempt to frame Mr. Trujillo. As the Supreme Court explained in Strickland, “counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgment.” 466 U.S. at 691. “An attorney is not required to investigate all leads as long as the decision not to pursue a particular lead 13 is reasonable under the circumstances.” Smith v. Workman, 550 F.3d 1258, 1270 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). As the district court and the CCA noted, counsel’s failure to test Mr. Trujillo’s personal pickup truck for DNA evidence was not unreasonable. Apart from Mr. Trujillo’s contention, there is no indication that this DNA evidence existed. Moreover, even if this evidence did exist, it would not prove that Mr. Trujillo and the victim had consensual sex or that the incident in the secluded area did not occur. Further, the overwhelming weight of the trial evidence goes against Mr. Trujillo’s theory that he was framed. For these reasons, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court properly rejected this ineffectiveness claim based on the Strickland standards. 3. Subclaim (c): Failure to Interview Prosecution Witnesses and Obtain Criminal Histories Mr. Trujillo argues that his attorney should have interviewed the prosecution’s witnesses and obtained their criminal histories to impeach their credibility. He claims that all the victims were drug addicts and that his attorney should have presented this information at trial. The record, however, reflects that Mr. Trujillo’s attorney attempted to interview the victims and requested criminal histories from the prosecution. The record also reflects that one of the victims testified that she had a prior felony conviction for drug possession and that she ingested cocaine with Mr. Trujillo on the night of the assault. 14 Mr. Trujillo fails to provide any evidence that the other victims had criminal records or used drugs in the past. The foregoing undermines any claim that either Strickland factor was met. Accordingly, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court properly rejected this claim. 4. Subclaim (f): Conceding a Pretrial Motion Regarding the Stabbing of One of the Victims a Few Days Before the September 30, 1999 Incident with Mr. Trujillo Mr. Trujillo argues that his attorney should not have conceded the prosecution’s motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence that one of the victims had been stabbed a few days before she was allegedly raped by Mr. Trujillo. He claims that had this evidence been introduced, it would have proved that the victim’s injuries were days old at the time of the alleged rape and that Mr. Trujillo could not have caused them. Mr. Trujillo does not state what injuries the victim sustained from the stabbing, nor does he explain how they would have been the same as the injuries that medical personnel observed on the night of the alleged rape. The testimony of the medical personnel who treated the victim on the night of the alleged rape strongly suggested that the victim’s injuries were immediate. The paramedic who first examined the victim testified that her arms and legs shook for approximately 30 to 45 seconds, which he thought was a potential tonic/colonic seizure. The emergency room doctor who treated her testified that she was transported to the hospital on a backboard with pain in her head, neck, and forearm, and that she was frightened and anxious. He also testified that he observed the victim’s injuries: 15 She had several small contusions . . . [that] were an inch to two inches in diameter. That her neck was tender along the midline . . . . She had some redness to the side of her cheek and a bunch of scratches to her back. She had a small cut on her right elbow and then a two-by-four abrasion on her forearm . . . . Tr. Vol. 14 at 10. He further testified that although he did not think the shaking episode was a tonic/colonic seizure, he did observe that the victim was having muscle tremors. Because there was ample testimony at trial regarding the victim’s immediate injuries sustained the night of the assault, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court properly dismissed this ineffective assistance claim. 5. Subclaim (h): Failure to Make a Closing Argument Mr. Trujillo argues that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because his attorney waived his opportunity to present a closing argument. He contends that his attorney should have used this opportunity to point out inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. He also claims that by failing to make a closing statement, his attorney essentially conceded that Mr. Trujillo was guilty. The Supreme Court has never considered whether failure to give a closing argument constitutes ineffective assistance. See Allen v. Lawhorn, 131 S. Ct. 562, 564 (2010) (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J. and Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“[N]one of our cases has ever considered whether the failure to give a closing argument can be considered prejudicial under Strickland.”). But we have stated that “it is wellsettled that the decision to waive an opening or closing statement is a commonly adopted strategy, and without more, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” Fox v. Ward, 200 F.3d 1286, 1296 (10th Cir. 2000). The record shows that Mr. Trujillo’s 16 attorney actively defended Mr. Trujillo throughout the trial and never conceded Mr. Trujillo’s guilt. Even if we were to question Mr. Trujillo’s attorney’s decision to waive closing argument, Mr. Trujillo has not established that he was prejudiced by this decision. Based on the overwhelming weight of the evidence at trial, such an argument would likely not have changed the outcome of the trial. For these reasons, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court properly rejected this claim based on the Strickland standards. 6. Subclaim (i): Failure to Challenge the Composition of the Jury Mr. Trujillo argues that his attorney should have challenged the composition of the jury, which, including alternates, consisted of twelve women and two men, all of whom were white. He claims that the large number of women on the jury made it biased because this was a sexual assault case. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a jury pool consisting of a fair cross section of the community. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975). But “[d]efendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition” and the actual jury need not mirror the community. Id. at 538. A defendant also does not have a constitutional right to a “jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race.” Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85 (1986) (quotations omitted). We are not aware of contrary authority regarding a jury consisting primarily of women. Mr. Trujillo appears to be making a Batson claim, but he never argues that his attorney or the prosecution improperly used their peremptory challenges. Nor does Mr. 17 Trujillo challenge the composition of the jury pool. He does not present a cognizable issue relating to the composition of the jury. For these reasons, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court properly rejected this claim based on the Strickland standards. 7. Subclaim (h): Failure to Call Two Important Rebuttal Witnesses Mr. Trujillo argues that his attorney should have called Agent Susan Stephens and Agent James Greer to testify at trial that he did not have visible injuries during the days after one of the incidents even though the victim testified that she had kicked and scratched him. Three prosecution witnesses testified that Mr. Trujillo had visible injuries after the incident. The mother of his child testified that he had large scratches on his face and arms. Additionally, two of Mr. Trujillo’s coworkers testified of his injuries—one testified that he had scratches on his face, and the other testified that he had a black eye. Conversely, Mr. Trujillo’s girlfriend and his roommate both testified that he did not have scratches on his face or arms after the alleged incident. Mr. Trujillo argues that Agents Greer and Stephens would have presented unbiased testimony that he did not have visible injuries after the alleged incident. He states that Agents Greer and Stephens responded to a domestic violence call at his girlfriend’s home less than a week after the incident and prepared a police report indicating that “John [Trujillo] stated that he had no injuries and there was no damage done to his truck.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 40, 65. According to Mr. Trujillo, if he had scratches 18 on his face or a black eye, the agents would have included that information in their police report. But this police report appears to be limited to the discrete domestic violence incident and refers only to what Mr. Trujillo himself reported about his injuries, not the officers’ observations about any prior injuries that Mr. Trujillo might have had. Thus, there is no indication that Agent Greer or Agent Stephens would have testified that Mr. Trujillo did not have visible injuries. Furthermore, Mr. Trujillo’s attorney did elicit testimony from two witnesses that Mr. Trujillo did not have visible injuries. For these reasons, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate whether the district court properly rejected this claim. 8. Other Ineffectiveness Claims In his application for COA, Mr. Trujillo mentions other ineffective assistance arguments, such as inconsistencies in testimony that his attorney should have highlighted or testimony that he should have elicited. But Mr. Trujillo does not fully articulate these arguments, nor does it appear that he fully exhausted them in state court. In any event, even if Mr. Trujillo had exhausted these arguments, after reviewing the record, we conclude that none of these arguments supports a debatable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. 9. Cumulative Effect Mr. Trujillo argues that the cumulative effect of his attorney’s errors constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and that the district court erred in considering each of his claims in isolation. We disagree. We have not found Supreme Court precedent holding 19 that the cumulative effect of a counsel’s nonerrors may constitute ineffective assistance. We explained in United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 973, 990 (10th Cir. 2010), that “[c]umulative error analysis evaluates the effect only of errors, not the cumulative effect of nonerrorrs.”; see also Bunton v. Atherton, 613 F.3d 973, 990 (10th Cir. 2010) (“In any event, the cumulative error doctrine does not apply here because we have not found the existence of two or more actual errors.”). Because we reject all of Mr. Trujillo’s individual claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, we cannot hold that the cumulative effect of his attorney’s conduct was nonetheless ineffective. We conclude that this argument does not support Mr. Trujillo’s application for a COA.