Opinion ID: 768324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether a New Evidentiary Hearing is Required

Text: 27 The provisions of the federal habeas statute govern our review. It provides that a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The [habeas] applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. S 2254(e)(1). In interpreting this statute, the Supreme Courthas held that an implicit finding of fact is tantamount to an express one, such that deference is due to either determination. See Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 35 (1992); Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 432-33 (1982); LaVallee v. Delle Rose , 410 U.S. 690, 692 (1973) (per curiam); see also McAleese v. Mazurkiewicz, 1 F.3d 159, 172 (3d Cir. 1993); Ahmad v. Redman, 782 F.2d 409, 413 (3d Cir. 1986).
28 Campbell does not seek to introduce new evidence that would cast doubt upon the factual determinations made by the state courts involved in this case. Rather, he argues that the PCHA court and the Superior Court made no factual determination to which we need to defer. In advancing this argument, he makes two contentions: (1) that both courts' treatment of the unresolved issue of fact created by Campbell's and his trial counsel's conflicting testimony was too indeterminate to be treated as a factual determination; and (2) that if the Superior Court made a definitive factual finding resolving this credibility dispute, the court did not have the power to do so under Pennsylvania law, and hence, its finding should be disregarded. Campbell therefore submits that, to resolve his substantive habeas claim, a new evidentiary hearing must be held--not so that new, or recently discovered, evidence may be introduced, but so that the District Court can determine, based on Campbell's live testimony and that of his trial counsel's whether, as a matter of fact, his trial counsel informed him that it was his decision whether to testify on his own behalf. 29 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) amended the federal habeas statute in such a way as to limit the availability of new evidentiary hearings on habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. S 2254(e)(2). Prior to AEDPA, new evidentiary hearings were required in several circumstances. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313 (1963) (listing six circumstances in which a hearing was required, including when the material facts were not adequately developed at the state-court hearing); Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 11 (1992) (refining the Townsend standard by requiring that the petitioner show cause for his failure to develop the facts in the state-court proceedings and actual prejudice resulting from that failure, but not curtailing Townsend's list); see also 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d) (1995) (amended by AEDPA, at 28 U.S.C.A. S 2254(e)(2) (West Supp. 1999)) (providing the pre-AEDPA standard for holding evidentiary hearings on habeas review). 30 AEDPA, in contrast, permits evidentiary hearings on habeas review, but only in a limited number of circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. S 2254(e). 4 If Campbell is correct that the state courts failed to resolve the factual issue on which his habeas petition rests, a new evidentiary hearing would be permitted, as the failure to develop the factual record would not be hisfault. AEDPA and uniform case law interpreting it provide that if the habeas petitioner has diligently sought to develop the factual basis of a claim for habeas relief, but has been denied the opportunity to do so by the state court, S 2554(e)(2) will not preclude an evidentiary hearing in federal court. Cardwell v. Greene, 152 F.3d 331, 337 (4th Cir. 1998) (collecting court of appeals cases that agree with this proposition). 31 However, even if a new evidentiary hearing is permitted under AEDPA--when it is solely the state's fault that the habeas factual record is incomplete--AEDPA, unlike Townsend and Keeney, does not require that such a hearing be held. Instead, federal courts have discretion to grant a hearing or not. In exercising that discretion, courts focus on whether a new evidentiary hearing would be meaningful, in that a new hearing would have the potential to advance the petitioner's claim. For example, in Cardwell, the court held that a new evidentiary hearing was permissible under AEDPA because it was the state's fault that the factual record was incomplete. See 152 F.3d at 338. The court nonetheless went on to conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to grant the petitioner an evidentiary hearing, because the petitioner ha[d] failed to forecast any evidence beyond that already contained in the record that would help his cause, or otherwise to explain how his claim would be advanced by an evidentiary hearing. Id. 32 Campbell, in contrast, has explained how a new hearing would advance his claim. Assuming arguendo, that he is correct that the Pennsylvania state courts did not resolve the credibility dispute between Campbell and his trial counsel, a new evidentiary hearing in which the Magistrate Judge or District Judge found that Campbell's testimony is to be believed would surely advance his right-to-testify/ ineffective-assistance claim. Such a finding would mean that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by unconstitutionally interfering with his right to testify. If Campbell is wrong, and the state courts made a finding of fact to which we must defer, then a new evidentiary hearing would not only not advance his right-to-testify/ineffective-assistance claim, it would be forbidden under the precepts of S 2254(e)(2) and case law interpreting it, because there would be no factual deficiency that a federal habeas court could redress.
33 In addressing Campbell's S 2254(e)(2) claim, the Magistrate Judge, the District Judge, the Commonwealth, and Campbell have all concentrated on the Superior Court's statement that the record would indicate that Campbell's trial counsel informed his client that it was his decision to testify. Commonwealth v. Campbell, No. 1010 Philadelphia 1987, at 8 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jul. 26, 1988) (citations omitted). The Magistrate Judge, the District Judge, and the Commonwealth have reasoned that this is the determination of fact to which we must defer, and therefore that a S 2254(e)(2) hearing is inappropriate. Campbell contends both that the Superior Court's statement is not a determination of fact, and that the Superior Court, as an appellate court, did not have the power under Pennsylvania law to make such a finding on a cold record when making such a finding necessitated resolving a credibility dispute without having seen the witnesses testify. Neither the Magistrate Judge, the District Judge, nor the Commonwealth have addressed the latter argument. 34 The parties' and the Magistrate and District Judges' focus on the Superior Court opinion is not necessary. Under Pennsylvania law, the PCHA court was charged with making the finding of fact in question. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 444 A.2d 1291, 1293 n.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982) (describing the duty); Commonwealth v. Miranda , 442 A.2d 1133, 1138-43 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)(same). Accordingly, it was the PCHA court's duty to resolve the credibility dispute between Campbell and trial counsel before passing Campbell's legal claim to the Superior Court. See Commonwealth v. Elliot, 466 A.2d 666, 668 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983); Johnson, 444 A.2d at 1293 n.2; Miranda, 442 A.2d at 1138; see also infra Section II.C (explaining this procedure). We believe the PCHA court made this finding of fact, to which we must defer, and turn to this matter now. Before doing so, we note that in relying on the PCHA court's finding, we express no opinion as to whether in this precise factual circumstance, the Superior Court could have made this finding of fact on the cold appellate record, such that we would need to defer to it pursuant to AEDPA.
35 In determining whether the PCHA court made a finding of fact resolving the credibility dispute between Campbell and his trial counsel, the prime evidentiary source is the PCHA court's written opinion. Through its repeated references to the insufficiency of the evidence that Campbell adduced to support his myriad ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, the PCHA court demonstrated--if in somewhat circumabulatory fashion--that it did not credit Campbell's testimony that his trial counsel failed to inform him of his right to choose to testify. While never explicitly crediting the testimony of Campbell's trial counsel, the PCHA court wrote: 36 It may be noted in passing that the allegedly new issues raised by defendant at his Post Conviction Hearing Act Hearing . . . are clearly unsupported by the records . . . . 37 . . . 38 The defendant has simply failed to carry his burden of establishing ineffectiveness as to any specific issue raised or collectively as to all of the issues raised. Commonwealth v. Campbell, No. 666-84, at 3 (Pa. Ct. Common Pleas Jan. 6, 1988). 39 This court does respectfully suggest that the defendant's contention of ineffectiveness as to the additional issues has not been established by the evidence. 40 Id. at 4. 41 As we read these passages, we believe that the PCHA court implicitly discredited Campbell's testimony. Borrowing from the Supreme Court's holding in LaVallee v. Delle Rose, 410 U.S. 690, 692 (1973) (per curiam), [a]lthough it is true that the state trial court did not specifically articulate its credibility findings, it can scarcely be doubted from its written opinion that [Campbell's] factual contentions were resolved against him. Although, as Campbell properly notes, the PCHA court made one of these remarks in passing, Campbell, No. 666-84, at 3, the PCHA court was properly passing the legal resolution of these claims--based on the factual record it created--on to the Superior Court. Miranda and other Pennsylvania case law dictated that the PCHA court do so, and, in fact, prohibited the PCHA court from reaching out to dispose of the legal questions raised in those additional claims. 42 Miranda held that once the PCHA court determines petitioner has been deprived of his appellate rights, it should refrain from ruling upon the merits of the other claims and should grant petitioner the right to file an appeal nunc pro tunc. 442 A.2d at 1138. In completing the record for appellate review as to the other claims,the PCHA court is merely acting as an evidentiary tribunal. Id. (emphasis added). Cases interpreting Miranda hold the same. In Commonwealth v. Pate, the Pennsylvania Superior Court wrote, [O]nce a PCRA court [the equivalent of PCHA court] determines that a petitioner's right to direct appeal has been violated, the PCRA court is precluded from reaching the merits of other issues raised in the petition. 617 A.2d 754, 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (emphasis added). This limitation on the powers and duties of the PCHA court may explain its somewhat tentative written opinion, as well as validate its (inchoate) fact-finding. 43 Similarly, the fact that the PCHA court merely suggest[ed] that the evidence did not support Campbell's claims does not undermine our conclusion. Campbell, No. 666-84, at 4. If anything, it bolsters it, for in attempting to determine the character of the PCHA court's statements, we also look to the court's legal conclusions and the rational deductions that we can draw there from. As the Supreme Court made clear in Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 433 (1982), in determining what implicit factual findings a state court made in reaching a conclusion, we must infer that it applied federal law correctly. Therefore, the PCHA court's suggestion to the Superior Court regarding the merits of Campbell's claims is helpful in determining what findings of fact it implicitly reached. See id.; see also Ahmad v. Redman, 782 F.2d 409, 413 (3d Cir. 1986) (applying the rule in Marshall). Put differently, our duty is to begin with the PCHA court's legal conclusion and reason backward to the factual premises that, as a matter of reason and logic, must have undergirded it. 44 The PCHA court repeatedly suggested that Campbell's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims had no legal merit. From this tentative legal conclusion one may infer that the PCHA court assumed that Campbell's trial counsel properly informed him of his right to testify. Otherwise, the legal conclusion would be invalid, because Campbell's lawyer would have deprived him of his constitutionally guaranteed right to choose whether to testify on his own behalf at trial. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983) ([T]he accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, [including] as to whether to . . . testify in his or her own behalf.); see also Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 49-56 (1987). As Marshall, 459 U.S. at 433, teaches, we cannot assume that a state court would have so grossly misapplied our federal jurisprudence as to have reached the legal conclusion it did based on a factual finding to the contrary. 45 Carrying through the logic from the PCHA court's suggested legal conclusion and the implicit factual conclusion that drives it, we can infer that the PCHA court credited the testimony of Campbell's trial counsel over Campbell. If the PCHA court had credited Campbell's testimony, its implicit factual finding that Campbell was notified of his right to testify would be irrational. It would mean that the PCHA court found Campbell more credible, but understood him to say the opposite of what he said. 46 A review of our precedent supports this mode of analysis. In McAleese v. Mazurkiewicz, 1 F.3d 159, 171-72 (3d Cir. 1993), for example--a habeas case based on a ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim--the defendant contended that his trial counsel had failed to obtain certain long-distance phone records that would have greatly bolstered his alibi defense. At a post-conviction hearing, the defendant testified that he had told his trial counsel that such records could be obtained from the phone company and that he had asked his lawyer to obtain them. See id. at 172. His trial counsel then testified that he did not know that the telephone company kept or could have produced such records. See id. Faced with this conflicting evidence, the state post-conviction relief court hearing this evidence failed to resolve explicitly the credibility dispute between the defendant and his trial counsel. Id. The court did, however, decide that trial counsel had thoroughly investigated and considered all the areas about which [the defendant] complained post-verdict. Id. In reviewing the state court's legal conclusion, we held that [i]mplicit in this conclusion is a finding that trial counsel's testimony was credible. This finding is presumptively correct and should not be disturbed by a federal court on habeas review if it is fairly supported by the record. Id. (citing, inter alia, LaVallee v. Delle Rose, 410 U.S. 690, 694-95 (1973) (per curiam)); see also Ahmad, 782 F.2d at 413 (reaching a similar conclusion on similar facts). 47 In sum, under the Supreme Court precedent articulated in Marshall and LaVallee, and pursuant to our cases such as McAleese and Ahmad, although the PCHA court did not make its findings of fact explicit, we are bound by its implicit resolution of the credibility dispute between Campbell and his trial counsel. The PCHA court should have made its factual findings explicit, and it would have been salutary for the Superior Court to have taken the PCHA court to task for not doing so. Cf. Commonwealth v. Townsell, 379 A.2d 98, 100 n.6 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977) (noting with disapproval a PCHA court's failure to make its findings of fact explicit in the post-conviction relief hearing record); see also Commonwealth v. Elliot , 466 A.2d 666, 668 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (noting that [o]n prior occasions, and in the instant appeal, the Superior Court ha[d] remanded for findings of fact where the P.C.H.A. hearing court failed to resolve conflicts in evidence or determine issues of credibility). 48 At all events, we hold that the PCHA court made a sufficient determination of the factual issue on which Campbell's habeas appeal turns. AEDPA dictates that we must presumptively defer to this determination absent clear evidence to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C.S 2254(e)(1). As Campbell has introduced no such clear evidence, we further hold that ordering a new evidentiary hearing in this situation would be inappropriate. See supra Section II.A (discussing the circumstances in which a 28 U.S.C. S 2254(e)(2) evidentiary hearing is appropriate). 49 III. The Merits of Campbell's Substantive Habeas Claim in Light of the PCHA Court's Findings 50 In turning to the merits of Campbell's substantive habeas claim, we defer to the PCHA court's finding of fact that Campbell's trial counsel told Campbell that it was Campbell's choice whether to testify. The Superior Court hearing Campbell's nunc pro tunc appeal reviewed the evidence that the PCHA court implicitly credited--namely, that Campbell's trial counsel absolutely told Campbell it was Campbell's decision whether to testify, see supra note 2--and reached the legal merits of Campbell's right-to-testify/ineffective-assistance claim. It held that the legal assistance given by Campbell's counsel had not been ineffective because Campbell made a decision not to testify after full consultation. . . . [and] it appears that counsel had a reasonable basis designed to further appellant's interests, for not calling him to testify. Commonwealth v. Campbell, No. 1010 Philadelphia 1987, at 8 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jul. 26, 1988) (citations omitted). On habeas review, 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d) governs our review of the state court's substantive legal conclusion. 51 As amended by AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d), provides that 52 (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim 53 (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, o r involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 54 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidencepresented in the State court proceeding. 55 28 U.S.C.A. S 2254(d) (West Supp. 1999). 56 We address these two potential grounds for habeas relief in reverse order. At the PCHA hearing, Campbell's trial counsel testified unequivocally that he informed Campbell of his right to testify and that he assured him it was Campbell's ultimate decision, alone, whether to testify. See supra note 2. Campbell testified to the contrary. See id. A reasonable fact-finder could discount Campbell's testimony and credit his trial counsel's. Therefore, the state PCHA court did not make an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented when it implicitly reached that conclusion. Accordingly, habeas relief is unwarranted under 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d)(2). 57 We next turn our attention to 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d)(1). In reaching its legal conclusion, the Superior Court applied the federal standard regarding ineffective-assistance-of counsel claims articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96 (1984). Based on the facts presented it concluded that Campbell's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance. The Court reasoned, appropriately, that Campbell's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by warning him that if he were to take the witness stand and recant his remorse-filled confession, he would likely alienate the jury. If anything, this was sound advice. The factual record to which we must defer demonstrates that this advice went no further than counseling, and that trial counsel did not suggest to Campbell that he could not testify, even if he chose to do so. 58 On these facts, the Superior Court applied federal law in a reasonable manner in concluding that Campbell's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance under the objective reasonableness standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Strickland. See, e.g. , United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525, 1534-35 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that counsel's performance was not constitutionally deficient, in case in which defendant was advised of his right to testify, but was advised that he should not exercise that right because it would be unwise and unnecessary). As this decision was not contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law, or an unreasonable application of  such law, 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d)(1), habeas relief under S 2254(d)(1) is unwarranted, see Matteo v. Superintendent, SCI Albion, 171 F.3d 877, 888-91 (3d Cir. 1999) (en banc) (establishing the analytical framework, under AEDPA, for reviewing the legal conclusions reached by state courts based on federal law). The District Court's order denying habeas relief will therefore be affirmed.