Opinion ID: 566790
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Material Discovery Violation

Text: 28 Tejada contends that the prosecution's material discovery violation--its failure to disclose that Gail Megginnson was arrested the day before the start of trial--warrants habeas relief. The government argues, and the state trial court agreed, that these claims are procedurally defaulted because Tejada failed to raise the issue on direct review. 8 But Tejada contends that, because the state court also reached the merits of the federal constitutional issue, we are not barred from reviewing the issue because the state court opinion fails the plain statement test of Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). He also contends that, because the state trial court's decision was affirmed per curiam without opinion, the plain statement rule requires that we review the merits of his claim. We disagree. The Supreme Court in Harris held that 29 a procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering judgment in the case clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar. 30 Id. at 262, 109 S.Ct. at 1043. After oral argument in the instant case, the Supreme Court in Ylst v. Nunnemaker, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991), held that where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim are presumed to rest upon the same ground. Nunnemaker, --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 2591-92. 9 31 We have long recognized that [a] state court is entitled to express its views on federal constitutional issues without waiving its procedural default rules. Pelmer v. White, 877 F.2d 1518, 1520 (11th Cir.1989) (quoting Hall v. Wainwright, 733 F.2d 766, 777 (11th Cir.1984)); see also Harris, 489 U.S. at 264 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1044 n. 10 (state court can reach merits of federal claim in alternative holding). Thus, we must consider whether the state trial court's statement disposing of Tejada's claim meets the test of the plain statement rule; if so, we are barred from reviewing the merits of his claim, absent cause and prejudice. 10 32 The state trial court in Tejada's post-conviction relief proceeding found that Tejada's claim of a material discovery violation was procedurally barred. Relying on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, it stated that this issue could have been raised at the time of trial and on direct appeal, but was not, and review is therefore precluded. Only after stating this did the state court address other aspects of the claim. 11 Considering the state trial court's language, we conclude that, despite the state court's consideration of the merits of Tejada's claim, it clearly and expressly stated that its disposition of the claim rested on a state procedural bar. Under the plain statement rule of Harris v. Reed, the state trial court's statement--that Tejada's failure to raise the issue at trial and on direct review barred the state court from considering the issue on collateral review--which was affirmed per curiam by Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, is a sufficiently plain statement invoking a state procedural bar to prevent us from reaching the merits of the issue, absent a showing of cause for and prejudice from the procedural default. 33 We decline to remand this claim to the district court to determine whether Tejada can establish cause for and prejudice from his procedural default because we have discovered no prejudice. The alleged discovery violation was harmless; therefore, even if Tejada could show cause for his procedural default, he can show no prejudice from the constitutional error because he would not be entitled to relief. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment. A Brady violation, thus, occurs where (1) the prosecution suppresses evidence; (2) the evidence is favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence is material to the issues at trial. See Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898, 899 (11th Cir.1990) (en banc). The Supreme Court has stated that 34 evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 35 Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S.Ct. at 3383; see also Francis v. Dugger, 697 F.Supp. 472, 477 (S.D.Fla.1988) ([T]here must be a reasonable likelihood that the testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.), aff'd, 908 F.2d 696 (11th Cir.1990). 12 In addition, when a defendant's guilt may turn on the credibility of a particular witness, the prosecutor's nondisclosure of evidence on the witness' credibility or bias may deprive the defendant of the right of confrontation. Francis, 697 F.Supp. at 475. But this too is viewed in the light of the harmless-error analysis of whether the evidence could have affected the judgment of the jury. Id. at 476, 477. 36 Having reviewed the testimony in this case, particularly Megginnson's examination and cross-examination, we conclude that the nondisclosure of the information that Megginnson was arrested on a probation-violation warrant the day before Tejada's trial was to begin is immaterial because there is no reasonable probability that disclosure of the arrest would have changed the result of the proceeding. See Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S.Ct. at 3383. The jury was fully acquainted with what the state trial court in the post-conviction relief proceeding described as Megginnson's somewhat checkered past: Megginnson testified on direct examination and cross-examination that she had pleaded guilty to grand theft (for the theft of Alexander's car) and, further, that she was testifying as a condition of her probation; defense counsel extensively cross-examined Megginnson on her violation of her probation condition that she get a job, on her past history of and numerous arrests for prostitution, on her earlier alcohol and drug abuse (which included cocaine), and on her use of aliases; and Tejada testified that, before the Alexander murder, Megginnson had been arrested for car theft and that the charges against her were dropped only when he agreed to reimburse the victim for the expense of renting a car while his car was missing. Given all this evidence on Megginnson's credibility--or lack thereof--and her incentive to testify, there is no reasonable probability that the introduction of this undisclosed evidence of her pretrial probation-violation arrest would have affected the judgment of the jury or the outcome of the trial. 37