United States v. Garvin

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-27-2008
USA v. Garvin
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1815
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Garvin" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1381.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1381
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-1815
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KYLE GARVIN,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 02-cr-00682)
District Judge: The Honorable Michael M. Baylson
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 3, 2008
Before: BARRY, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: March 27, 2008)
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Appellant Kyle Garvin appeals the judgment of the District Court denying his
motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We will affirm.
I.
Because we write only for the parties, we set forth only those facts that are relevant
to our analysis.
On the evening of December 11, 2000, an undercover surveillance unit from the
Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”) witnessed Garvin selling what they believed to
be drugs outside a Philadelphia deli. At some point, Garvin entered the deli. While he
was inside, a PPD plain clothes officer, Officer Jack Gohl, entered and ordered Garvin to
lay on the ground. Garvin ran out of the deli and Officer Gohl gave pursuit. Officer Gohl
testified that during the pursuit, from a distance of “eight to ten feet,” he witnessed
Garvin throw a “black object” onto the lawn of a private residence. (JA 165-66.) Shortly
thereafter, Officer Gohl caught Garvin and tackled him to the ground, at which point
Garvin threw another “black object” on the ground. (JA 166.) After Garvin was secured,
PPD officers recovered a magnetic key case near the location where he had been tackled.
Inside the key case officers found several small plastic bags containing crack cocaine.
Upon searching the lawn where Officer Gohl saw Garvin throw the first “black object,”
officers recovered a handgun. On Garvin’s person, officers found several small plastic
bags containing marijuana and $623 in U.S. currency.
Garvin was charged with possession of a handgun in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possession with
intent to distribute marijuana, and possession of a firearm by a felon. The only evidence
2
linking him to the gun and the crack cocaine was Officer Gohl’s testimony. Following
the denial of his motion to suppress and a two-day jury trial, he was convicted on all
counts. He appealed, and we affirmed his conviction.
Garvin thereafter sought collateral relief in the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. He claimed, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective because
she failed “to present evidence that no fingerprints tied Petitioner to the firearm,” and that
the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory fingerprint evidence to the defense. (JA 51-
52.) The District Court found that Garvin’s claims were frivolous, and denied the petition
without an evidentiary hearing. Garvin timely appealed. We appointed counsel and
issued a certificate of appealability as to the following issues:
(1) Whether the District Court erred in deciding not to hold a hearing on
appellant’s claims that (a) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
by failing to obtain or present evidence of whether there were fingerprints
on the gun or key case containing the cocaine base at issue and (b) the
prosecution should have disclosed to appellant’s counsel any such
fingerprint evidence that it may have had; and (2) Whether appellant is
entitled to relief on the merits of those claims.
(JA 11.)
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 and 1291. “We review the District Court’s
decision to deny an evidentiary hearing on a motion to vacate sentence for abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542, 545 (3d Cir. 2005). A district court
3
considering a § 2255 motion “must accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations
unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record,” and it “abuses its
discretion if it fails to hold an evidentiary hearing when the files and records of the case
are inconclusive as to whether the movant is entitled to relief.” Id. at 545-46 (citations
omitted).
III.
Under the standard articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a
prisoner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must show, first, that counsel’s
performance was deficient, i.e., that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,
and second, that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. See
Outten v. Kearney, 464 F.3d 401, 414 (3d Cir. 2006). “A court can choose to address the
prejudice prong before the ineffectiveness prong and reject an ineffectiveness claim
solely on the ground that the defendant was not prejudiced.” Rolan v. Vaughn, 445 F.3d
671, 678 (3d Cir. 2006). To establish prejudice, the movant must show that “there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. A reasonable
probability is one that is “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id.
Garvin claims that his counsel was ineffective because she failed to adequately
investigate the possibility of exculpatory fingerprint evidence on the gun and the key case.
To satisfy Strickland’s prejudice prong, Garvin must show that, but for his counsel’s
4
inadequate investigation, there is a reasonable probability that counsel would have found
fingerprint evidence favorable to his claim of innocence, thus undermining confidence in
his conviction. He has failed to make that showing. While fingerprint evidence may have
shown that Garvin’s fingerprints were not on either object, it also may have shown that
they were on both objects – thus substantially strengthening the government’s case.
There is no reason to believe that a favorable result was reasonably probable, especially
given the jury’s finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Garvin possessed both the gun
and the key case. Garvin’s suggestion that the evidence “undoubtedly” would have been
favorable to him is unsupported by the record and wholly speculative.1
Garvin also claims that the government’s failure to disclose fingerprint evidence
violated due process. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the prosecution
must disclose evidence to a criminal defendant where the evidence is favorable to the
defendant and material either to guilt or punishment. Id. at 87. In United States v.
Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967 (3d Cir. 1991), we held that the prosecution’s duty to disclose
Brady material extends to evidence that, while not in the prosecution’s actual possession,
is reasonably available to it. Id. at 970-71. Although it hardly bears mention, an implicit
prerequisite of any Brady claim is that favorable, material evidence actually exists.
Here, there is no evidence that fingerprint evidence was either in existence or
1
Because we find that Garvin was not prejudiced by his counsel’s performance, we
need not decide whether that performance was deficient. See Rolan, 445 F.3d at 678.
5
obtainable. Garvin’s Brady claim presupposes that it exists, or, alternatively, that it could
have been obtained by the prosecution by subjecting the gun and the key case to analysis.
These assumptions find no support in the record, and they are inadequate to state a Brady
claim. Moreover, even assuming that fingerprint evidence were obtainable, for the
reasons stated above there is not a reasonable probability that it would have been
favorable to Garvin or material to his claim of innocence. His Brady claim fails because
he has not shown that the prosecution suppressed favorable, material evidence that it was
required to disclose.
IV.
The record conclusively establishes that Garvin was not entitled to relief, and the
District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying his § 2255 motion without a
hearing. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
6