Opinion ID: 2345721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petition For Post Conviction Relief For Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

Text: On July 28, 2000, Arrington filed a Petition for Post Conviction Relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because [c]ounsel failed to have the blood evidence presented in the case tested through a DNA analysis. Petitioner requested that Counsel conduct a DNA test. However, one was never done. Arrington requested a new trial, vacation of the sentencing and/or re-sentencing, a hearing on the Petition for Post Conviction Relief, and such other and further relief as may be required. On September 12, 2001, there was a hearing in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on Arrington's request. At his hearing, Arrington relayed what he told his trial counsel about the blood on his sweat pants: Well, I think it was right before we pickedstarted having jury selection, and he came to me and said, We have some bad news, and I'm like, What is it? He's like, Well, they say they have they've got blood evidence. They say they have the victim's blood on your clothes. Do you know how it got there? I said, No, I don't. I said, I don't have the victim's blood on my clothes. He said, Well, this is what they say. I said, Well, the only blood I had on my pants is the blood from a female friend that I had sex with. And so, he was like, So, tell me how that got on your clothes. So, I told him how I had sex with a female and the blood got on my pants, and he was like, I don't think the jury is going to believe that, and he was like, It's hard for me to believe. I said, Well, I'm telling you the truth. I said, All we have to do is get a DNA test done. He was like, Well, we've postponed enough, and I thinkI don't think we're able to postpone again, or something of that nature. Arrington also referenced the jury's note regarding blood evidence. The State's Attorney who tried the case testified that he did not think it was necessary to order DNA testing because so many eyewitnesses testified that Arrington was the attacker and witnesses also testified that he gloated about the attack immediately afterward. According to Arrington's trial counsel, Arrington never asked him to conduct DNA testing. Arrington's counsel testified that Arrington related to him not on the eve of trial, but some time earlierthat the blood on his clothing came from a woman he had sex with, but that Arrington would provide him no further details about said woman. Arrington's counsel explained why he did not request further DNA testing on the blood samples: I weighedthe evidence that we had been provided with by the State showed that he had been identified by a number of eyewitnesses who had ample time to observe him over a long period of time. The evidence also showed that he was at the scene, because there was at least one photograph taken by one of the party participants where he was clearly in the photograph. A number of the witnesses clearly identified him as being the person who either actually stabbed Mr. Simmons and-or stated that he had stabbed Mr. Simmons with different types of words, either I cut him orI don't recall the various words, but they used various words to describe what had happened. There was no question that he was at the scene. There was very littlethis was not a racial case, in that you had white people identifying African American people. These were African American people at the party, and some of the witnesses were African American as well. There was ample time for them to observe him as well. First of all, even if additional testing had been done and additional testing excluded the blood on the pants as coming from the victim, it would not have eliminated or minimized the effect of the testimony of all those witnesses who clearly identified him at the scene. The prosecutor had not done DNA testing. His explanation to me as to the source of the blood was so insubstantial that I was concerned that additional testing might actually show the blood came from the victim. He did not talk to me about DNA testing at the time. I don't think he knew about DNA testing at the time and understood that DNA testing could show perhaps that the blood actually came from the victim. I did not want to raise a red flag for the prosecution at thatin the case or heighten that in any way, and for those reasons I didn't pursue DNA testing. The postconviction court denied Arrington's request for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel and issued the following ruling from the bench: [D]efense counsel testified that he, in fact, did discuss the blood evidence with the defendant and that he did consider the possibility of having the blood tested further but declined to do soor, made a tactical decision, I should say, not to do so after listening to the defendant's explanation of where the blood came from, which was from a woman that he had had sex with shortly before the murder. The defendant could not identify the woman other than by her first name, gave defense counsel no better explanation or no opportunity to try and track this woman down, and it was entirely reasonable for defense attorney to not have given much credence to his client's explanation of where the blood came from. Based on the State's evidence, the defense could have argued that while the blood was consistent, that certainly did not mean that it was from the victim, whereas a DNA test would have been conclusive and most likely have been conclusive against the defendant. That was certainly in the defense counsel's mind when he made his tactical decision. So, the Court finds that counsel made an entirely reasonable explanation for his failure to seek DNA testing of the blood found on the defendant's sweat pants. [T]herefore, there was no deficient performance and no ineffective assistance of counsel. With respect to prejudice, the Court finds the evidence was overwhelming setting aside the blood evidence, overwhelmingly against the defendant through a number of eyewitnesses, who not only saw him commit the murder but saw him with a knife and heard him indicate that he had, in fact, stabbed the victim.