Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 03-7394
of
the
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-02-646-2)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Gene M. Johnson, Acting Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections (the state),1 appeals the district courts conditional
grant of Carnell Draughns 2254 petition for writ of habeas
corpus.
withdraw
from
the
case,
he
revealed
confidential
client
Because,
even
assuming
Draughns
counsel
was
I.
At approximately 8:40 p.m. on the evening of March 31, 1997,
an African-American male entered a Blockbuster Music store in
Newport News, VA.
placed his hand on the counter, and told the employee working at
the register, William Workinger, that he had 30 mother-f***king
seconds to clear that register before I pop a cap in your ass.
(J.A. at 39.)
register and then opened the next register for the individual only
to find that it was empty, the individual ordered Workinger to take
him to the room where the night deposit was kept.
Workinger and
the individual went to the back of the store and knocked on the
door where Heather Shaffer, another employee, was putting together
the night deposit. Workinger told Shaffer to open the door because
there was a problem.
(J.A. at
also
about
5'7",
the
same
height
as
Workinger.2
Workinger
initially told police that the robber was wearing a black baseball
cap, but he testified at trial that the individual was wearing a
black stocking cap.
that he first thought the robber was simply wearing a baseball cap
with the bill turned backwards.
that the individual wore a baseball cap with the bill in front.
Both Workinger and Shaffer testified that the individual wore a
dark, bulky jacket, and that the robber did not produce a gun but
kept his right hand in his jacket pocket, where there was a
noticeable bulge.
After the robbery, Workinger immediately called the police,
who
responded
within
five
minutes.
Later
that
evening,
at
Several
the
basis
of
these
eyewitness
identifications,
the
commission of a felony.
January 28, 1998 in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News
(trial
court).
Draughn
took
the
stand
in
his
own
defense,
and
he
was
on
the
telephone
with
two
female
Draughn also
testified that, while driving his friend home between 10:30 p.m.
and 11:00 p.m., he passed the Blockbuster Music but did not notice
any police vehicles there.
however, that he passed the Blockbuster Music after the robbery and
saw the police cars in front of the store.
Draughn presented
evidence that he and Workinger had attended the same high school
and that Draughn was a well-known basketball star at the school.
The trial court heard arguments on the motion on April 21, 1998,
and at one point stated, if thats the only thing you base it on,
Im prepared to go forward with sentencing.
(J.A. at 162.)
however, and the trial court then stated, Ill give you an
opportunity to get him in here to testify whether or not he knew
him or not . . . but I think the testimony would reveal he just
simply said he had not seen him previously.
(J.A. at 163-64.)
The case was continued to June 10, 1998, for further consideration
of Draughns motion for new trial.
In the interim, however, Draughn requested that King withdraw
as his counsel.
(J.A. at 175.)
the trial court also reversed its earlier ruling that Draughn could
(J.A. at 181.)
told you you could put it on the record for whatever good, but I
was not going to hear the evidence.
(J.A. at 181.)
I am not
Music
robbed
was
the
day
before
the
one
in
question
by
an
and
Workinger
attended
had
The trial
court denied the motion for a new trial and later sentenced Draughn
to a total of ten years imprisonment.5
Draughn appealed the denial of the motion for new trial, but
the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial courts ruling,
finding that the evidence Draughn proffered during that motion
failed to meet the standard for granting a motion for a new trial.
The Supreme Court of Virginia declined to hear Draughns direct
appeal.
On July 25, 2000, Draughn filed a petition under Virginia law
for habeas corpus in the state habeas court.6
Draughn contended
for
privilege.
withdrawal
by
violating
Draughns
attorney-client
arguing that Draughn could not meet either prong of the Strickland
(J.A. at 280.)
According to King,
I explained to Mr.
Draughn that, at that stage, the court would require good reason
for me to withdraw.
to withdraw from his case, and that he would find another lawyer to
do things his way.
(J.A. at 281.)
(J.A. at 306.)
reasserting
his
ineffective
assistance
of
counsel
claims.7
from
the
case
because
the
disclosure
of
Draughns
(J.A. at 401.)
The
The
magistrate
and
judges
report
concluded
that
[t]he
findings
Draughn established that the outcome of his motion for a new trial
7
II.
We review de novo the district courts decision to grant a
habeas petition based on a state court record, applying the same
standards as the district court.
213, 216 (4th Cir. 2002).
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the scope of our review, and
that of the district court, is highly constrained.
Under 28
Williams v.
clearly
established
Id.
federal
must
be
objectively
unreasonable, and a federal habeas court may not issue the writ
simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment
that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established
federal law erroneously or incorrectly.
Id. at 411.
Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 158 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
In
Id.
13
Id. at 694.
Id.
to law.
Id.
Draughn must show at least that, but for Kings disclosure, there
was a reasonable probability that the trial court would have
granted the motion for a new trial.11
Draughns habeas petition, we must find that the state habeas court
was objectively unreasonable in concluding otherwise.
Applying this deferential standard of review, we conclude that
the state habeas court was not objectively unreasonable in finding
that Draughn did not suffer any prejudice, because the trial
courts ruling on the motion for a new trial was correct as a
matter of Virginia law.
Under Virginia law, motions for new trial based upon newly
discovered evidence are not looked upon with favor and are
awarded with great reluctance.
145, 149 (Va. 1983).
The defendant
and Draughn attended the same large high school could have been
discovered prior to trial with reasonable diligence, especially
given that Draughns high school record and athletic prowess were
mentioned several times during the trial.
Moreover, it is not
clear that the evidence was of the type that should change the
result at trial.
does
identification
not
Draughn.
cast
doubt
on
Shaffers
positive
of
16
for Kings errors, the result of the motion for new trial would
have been different.
The district court concluded that the trial judges anger with
Draughn after the motion to withdraw was denied met the Strickland
prejudice inquiry.
the
law
to
the
indicates,
the
trial
case
judge
before
him.
performed
As
his
the
duties
record
here
properly
in
III.
The
decision
of
the
district
court,
conditionally
granting
12