Wallace v. Jacobson

Background

After a jury trial in Dutchess County Court, Mark Wallace was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The state court sentenced him as a second felony offender to ten years in prison and three years of post-release supervision. The state trial and appellate courts denied his requests for relief, and the United States Supreme Court denied his request for review. Wallace also filed two applications for a state-court writ of coram nobis, and those applications were denied.

Wallace, who represented himself in this federal case, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition in full. Wallace objected to the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Wallace argued that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense before trial, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The evidence identified in his objections consisted of an audiotape of a police transmission indicating that he was in custody and a letter concerning DNA-analysis results. His claim in federal court was that his state appellate lawyer was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the alleged disclosure violation on appeal.

The court applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal law that limits habeas relief when a state court has already decided a federal claim. Under that law, Wallace had to show that the state court’s decision contradicted or unreasonably applied clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

The court also applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Wallace had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without the lawyer’s error.

The court concluded that Wallace failed to satisfy either part of that test. First, the court found that appellate counsel’s performance was reasonable. Counsel had raised twelve separate arguments on direct appeal and explained that he did not raise the alleged prosecutorial misconduct because he believed the record contained no supporting evidence.

Second, the court found no prejudice. Regarding the DNA evidence, the court stated that the positive DNA match on Wallace’s shirt did not change the fact that samples from an eyeglass case and baseball cap were inconclusive. The court also found that the DNA evidence would likely not have impeached the prosecution’s expert because Wallace admitted wearing the shirt from which the definitive match was obtained. Wallace also did not show that additional DNA testing would have helped him.

Regarding the audiotape, the court found that it merely indicated Wallace was in police custody. The court stated that Wallace’s claim that the recording was favorable evidence was conclusory and that he did not explain how disclosure of the recording would have undermined the testimony of two Poughkeepsie Police Department members.

Disposition

The court found Wallace’s objections without merit, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as the court’s opinion, and denied the habeas petition. The clerk was instructed to enter judgment and close the case. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Wallace had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.