Opinion ID: 663141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to render effective assistance of counsel during the trial.

Text: 16 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that a criminal defendant shall have assistance of counsel for his defense. The right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 1449 n. 14, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970). In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1981), the United States Supreme Court set out a two-pronged test which a petitioner must satisfy in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) the petitioner must prove that his counsel's performance/assistance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) the petitioner must also prove that he suffered prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged error, the decision reached would have been different. Id. at 688, 696, 104 S.Ct. at 2064-65, 2069. 17 We first consider whether the performance of Clark's trial counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Clark asserts that his trial counsel failed to present objections to evidence of uncharged criminal activity. The disputed evidence in this case can be placed into three categories: (1) testimony regarding acts of violence committed by Clark which were either witnessed or overheard by the victim; (2) testimony regarding another alleged sex crime committed by Clark on a friend of the victim's stepmother; and (3) testimony regarding Clark's involvement in incidents of public drunkenness and peace disturbance. 18
19 In State v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d 701 (Mo.Ct.App.1990), the Missouri Court of Appeals rejected Clark's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and affirmed his conviction on the grounds that evidence of acts of violence committed by Clark, which were either witnessed or overheard by the victim, was admissible. Id. at 703-04 (Counsel is not considered ineffective for failing to make a nonmeritorious objection.). The admissibility of evidence in a state trial is a matter of state law. Glaze v. Redman, 986 F.2d 1192, 1195 (8th Cir.1993). When a petitioner's federal habeas corpus claim is based upon a theory which can be determined as a matter of state law, the federal court is bound by a state court's interpretation of state law. See Glaze, 986 F.2d at 1195; Williams v. Armontrout, 877 F.2d 1376, 1383 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1082, 110 S.Ct. 1140, 107 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1990). Although the admissibility of evidence at a state trial is a matter of state law and ordinarily will not form the basis for federal habeas relief, a federal court may grant habeas relief when a state court's evidentiary ruling infringes upon a specific constitutional protection or is so prejudicial that it amounts to a denial of due process. Turner v. Armontrout, 845 F.2d 165 (8th Cir.1988). 20 After a full review of the facts, we do not find that the Missouri Court of Appeals' evidentiary ruling in State v. Clark infringed upon a specific constitutional protection or amounted to a denial of due process. 21 At the time of Clark's trial, the Missouri law regarding evidence of other crimes was as follows: 22 Generally evidence of other crimes is not admissible to prove the criminal character of a defendant. Such proof is admissible, however, if it has a legitimate tendency to establish guilt. Evidence of other crimes is, therefore, competent to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan or the identity of the person charged with the crime. 23 State v. Clark, 801 S.W.2d at 703. According to Clark, the Missouri Court of Appeals failed to apply that law correctly when it found the evidence of acts of violence either witnessed or overheard by the victim admissible. 24 That argument is flawed. The focus of Clark's argument is the Missouri Court of Appeals' statement that [i]t was proper for the state to present evidence which might supply a reason for the victim's silence. Id. at 703. Clark's interpretation of the evidentiary ruling in State v. Clark is that the Missouri Court of Appeals recognized a nonexistent exception to the general rule in Missouri that evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible. However, a closer look at the Missouri Court of Appeal's opinion reveals that the court was merely holding that evidence of acts of violence either witnessed or overheard was relevant under the circumstances: 4 25 Movant's trial counsel opened the door when he presented his theory of the case during his opening statement. It was proper for the state to present evidence which might supply a reason for the victim's silence. 26 .... 27 Here, the testimony relating to acts of violence was limited to incidents either witnessed by the victim or incidents which were close enough in proximity for her to overhear. Movant's trial counsel knew this evidence was responsive to his theory of the case. Any objection would have been meritless. Counsel is not considered ineffective for failing to make a nonmeritorious objection. 28 Id. at 703-04. Therefore, Missouri Court of Appeals neither erred in applying Missouri law nor committed an error of constitutional magnitude. 29 Because the Missouri Court of Appeals' evidentiary ruling did not infringe upon a specific constitutional protection or amount to a denial of due process, its ruling on the admissibility of the testimony regarding acts of violence either witnessed or overheard by the victim is binding on the federal courts. Therefore, for purposes of the first prong of the Strickland test, it was not unreasonable for Clark's trial counsel to fail to object to admissible evidence. 30
31 During Clark's trial, the testimony of both the victim and her stepmother referred to an alleged sex crime committed by Clark on a friend of the stepmother. Clark's trial counsel did not object to this evidence. However, the testimony regarding this alleged sex crime was also admissible. The disputed evidence on this point showed how the victim first came forward with her allegations against Clark. When the victim heard that one of her stepmother's friends had accused Clark of sexual abuse, she (the victim) then stated that he had done the same thing to her. Trial Tr. at 92-93, 124-25. Again, it was not unreasonable for Clark's trial counsel to fail to object to admissible evidence. 32
33 At trial, Clark's ex-wife testified that Clark had been involved in several episodes of public drunkenness and peace disturbance. 5 Clark's trial counsel did not raise an objection to this evidence. However, even if Clark's trial counsel committed an error by failing to object, that error did not influence the outcome of the case. The impact of the testimony on this point was negligible. Because the failure to object to testimony regarding public drunkenness and peace disturbance was, at most, harmless error, it did not render the assistance of Clark's trial counsel unreasonable under the first prong of the Strickland test. 34 Because Clark has made an insufficient showing with regard to the performance component of the two-prong Strickland test, we need not address the prejudice component of that test. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069-70. 35 B. The refusal to consider new evidence of another claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 36 The record shows that Clark did not present additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during his state post-conviction proceeding. 6 The district court held, and Clark does not contest, that as such, Clark is procedurally barred from presenting the additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to a federal court. We agree. See Stokes v. Armontrout, 851 F.2d 1085, 1092 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1019, 109 S.Ct. 823, 102 L.Ed.2d 812 (1989). 37 Clark may, however, overcome the procedural bar by showing cause for his failure to present the additional claims to the state courts, and actual prejudice resulting from the failure. Id. Clark argues, correctly, that sufficient cause may generally be established by proving that the procedural default in state court was due to ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-pronged test articulated in Strickland v. Washington. Id. However, in Coleman v. Thompson, U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), the United States Supreme Court stated: There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings. Consequently, a petitioner cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in such proceedings. Coleman, --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 2566 (citations omitted). In light of the Coleman decision, we hold that Clark can not demonstrate cause for his failure to present the additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at his state post-conviction proceeding by proving that that procedural defect was due to constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in that proceeding.