Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his guilty plea to sexual assault of child and production and possession of child pornography charges, where defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for informing him that he would receive only 5-year sentence if he pleaded guilty, and where defendant ultimately received 35-year sentence. While state court found that defendant had waived any ineffective assistance of counsel charge by entering into said guilty plea, defendant was entitled to challenge his guilty plea under Hill, 474 US 52, where defendant alleged that plea itself was result of ineffective assistance of counsel. As such, remand was required to generate record as to whether defendant’s trial counsel was actually ineffective.

In prosecution on charge of unlawful possession of firearm as felon, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statement that drugs and gun were in nearby bag that defendant had been carrying prior to his arrest, where said statement was made in response to officer’s question as to what was in said bag as defendant was being arrested for possession of other drugs. While defendant argued that he had been victim of two-step interrogation process that was designed to circumvent Miranda by subjecting him to interrogation prior to giving him any Miranda warnings, Miranda was not implicated where police question about contents of nearby bag qualified as public safety exception to Miranda, since instant question was necessary to secure officer’s safety while effectuating defendant’s arrest.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his sexual assault of child conviction on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file motion to suppress inculpatory statement that defendant made to off-duty police officer where: (1) ten-year-old victim told off-duty officer, who was at victim’s house as Big Brother, Big Sister volunteer, that defendant had sexually abused him; (2) officer confronted defendant, who was also at victim’s house, with victim’s accusation; and (3) defendant merely refuted alleged time frame of said abuse. While defendant argued that said statement would have been suppressed if counsel had filed motion to suppress since he was in police custody at time he made statement, state court could reasonably conclude that defendant was not in custody at time he gave statement, and thus any motion to suppress would have been denied since: (1) officer was not in uniform and was off-duty at time statement was made; and (2) officer did not display badge, draw weapon or take any action indicating that officer was acting in her role as officer, as opposed to private citizen at time she confronted defendant with victim’s accusation. Fact that defendant was aware that said volunteer was police officer at time he gave statement, or that officer told defendant not to leave after he gave said statement did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s failure to testify at trial. While state court erred in analyzing defendant’s claim as due process violation, as opposed to 5th Amendment privilege claim, any error was harmless, where at least three witnesses placed defendant with gun at scene of crime, and where defendant’s cellmate testified that defendant had confessed to shooting victim.