Lumpkin v. Hermans

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his conviction on two counts of possession of drugs with intent to deliver on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine government witness by impeaching said witness regarding: (1) alleged quantity of drugs witness purchased from defendant; (2) statements evincing witness’s motive to lie; (3) witness’s alleged drug dealing; and (4) witness’s prior criminal convictions. Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant suffered no prejudice as result of trial counsel’s representation, where there existed overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, since: (1) police uncovered on defendant’s person at time of arrest nearly 30 individual plastic bags containing drugs; (2) police officer testified drug contained in said bags was consistent with street sale; (3) police also uncovered from defendant more than $1,100 in small bills that suggested that defendant was in business of selling drugs; (4) another witness testified that he drove government witness to defendant’s home town to purchase drugs; and (5) text messages from government witness’s phone confirmed that she had planned on purchasing drugs from defendant, and that government witness had communicated with defendant to confirm her plan.