Opinion ID: 2633135
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: second petition for post-conviction relief

Text: ¶ 8 In June 2003, Medel filed this petition for post-conviction relief, contending that the prosecution violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland [6] by failing to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence before he entered his guilty pleas. Medel grounds his Brady claim on the results of several GRAMA requests that he filed in 2003. The State's response to these requests indicates that the State failed to disclose certain evidence in its possession before it entered into plea negotiations with Medel. According to Medel, the State knew of the undisclosed evidence's potentially exculpatory or at least mitigating value and knew that timely disclosure would jeopardize any chances of gaining pleas of guilty in all three criminal cases. ¶ 9 The undisclosed evidence on which Medel bases his Brady claim can be grouped into two categories. The first consists of a psychological report from Dr. Michael DeCaria (DeCaria Report or Report). The second includes all other undisclosed evidence (the other undisclosed evidence).
¶ 10 The DeCaria Report documents DeCaria's psychological examination of Medel in February 1987. The purpose of the examination was to evaluate Medel's eligibility for supervised release. In the Report, DeCaria notes that Medel's memory and sensory processes appeared intact. Moreover, Medel was oriented to person, place, time, and situation. . . . There was no evidence of hallucinations, delusions, or looseness of association. Despite these observations, however, DeCaria noted that Medel showed evidence of psychotic thought processes and that Medel's psychotic behavior may take the form of an active fantasy life and a failure to distinguish adequately between fact and fantasy. DeCaria also noted that Medel had poor impulse control and rebelliousness, which DeCaria found consistent with antisocial acting out, particularly when intoxicated. ¶ 11 Medel asserts that if he had received the DeCaria Report prior to pleading guilty, it would have convinced him to go to trial and assert a defense of diminished capacity. He also argues that the Report demonstrates that he was not competent to plead guilty.
¶ 12 The other undisclosed evidence is far more nebulous. It consists of several items allegedly in the State's possession prior to Medel's guilty pleas, including: medical evaluations of two of the victims, victim statements from all three victims, physical evidence from Medel's car obtained pursuant to a search warrant, reports analyzing physical evidence taken from Medel, a composite drawing of a police suspect, lineup cards used by the victims, follow-up reports from the sheriff's office, photographic and criminal records of two alternative suspects, and police reports summarizing the evidence in the cases. ¶ 13 Medel asserts that this other undisclosed evidence contains impeachment material that would have helped him evaluate the strength of the State's case. He argues that this evidence may have convinced him to go to trial rather than plead guilty.