Darryl Davis v. John Thalacker ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                           United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    _____________
    No. 96-3221SI
    _____________
    Darryl Davis,                     *
    *
    Appellant,        *   Appeal from the United States
    *   District Court for the
    v.                           *   Southern District of Iowa.
    *
    John Thalacker,                   *         [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.         *
    _____________
    Submitted:     April 18, 1997
    Filed: May 6, 1997
    _____________
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, and FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit
    Judges.
    _____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Darryl Davis was charged in Iowa state court with driving
    while intoxicated and driving with a suspended or revoked license.
    According to the arresting officer, Davis was driving and traded
    places   with   his   passenger,      Heather      Franzen,   as   the   officer
    approached to stop Davis’s car.             Davis claimed Franzen was the
    driver and subpoenaed her to testify as a material witness at his
    trial.   Franzen had been charged with interference with official
    acts for switching places with Davis, however, and with second-
    degree burglary for unrelated acts.            Franzen’s prosecutor filed a
    motion to quash Davis’s subpoena on the ground that Franzen would
    assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if
    called to testify.     Following a hearing, the court sustained the
    motion to quash.    The next day, a different prosecutor tried Davis,
    who proceeded pro se with standby counsel, and a jury convicted
    him.    A few days later, Franzen pleaded guilty to third-degree
    theft, and the State dismissed the interference charge.
    Davis did not directly appeal his conviction, but later filed
    a state postconviction action contending his right to compulsory
    process   was   violated   when     the   trial   court   quashed   Franzen’s
    subpoena.    The state postconviction court excused Davis’s failure
    to file a direct appeal, finding Davis mistakenly believed he was
    required to file appellate bonds, which he could not afford, and
    Davis did not know about the plea bargain and its consummation.
    The court did not find Franzen’s testimony would be favorable, but
    concluded    it    would    be    “highly     relevant”     and   “especially
    significant” because she was the only eyewitness besides the
    arresting   officer.       The   court    concluded   the   “possibility   of
    creating a conflict in [the] evidence . . . might create a
    reasonable doubt for the jury.”           Holding the prosecutors’ failure
    to inform Davis about Franzen’s pending plea agreement violated
    Davis’s right to compulsory process, the court granted a new trial.
    The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, finding Davis had procedurally
    defaulted his compulsory process claim by failing to appeal, and
    the lower court’s reasons for excusing the failure were legally
    insufficient.
    Davis then filed this federal habeas action renewing his
    compulsory process claim.        The district court held Davis waived the
    claim by failing to appeal in state court, and Davis failed to show
    cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default.                    The
    district court saw no cause in Davis’s mistaken belief about the
    bond requirement and the prosecutors’ failure to advise Davis of
    Franzen’s plea negotiations.         The district also court concluded
    -2-
    Davis had not shown prejudice because Davis did not show Franzen
    would have testified favorably.      Davis appeals.
    Federal    courts   can   consider    the   merits   of   procedurally
    defaulted claims if a petitioner shows cause for the default and
    actual prejudice.    See Luton v. Grandison, 
    44 F.3d 626
    , 628 (8th
    Cir. 1994).     To establish cause, a petitioner must show some
    objective factor external to the defense impeded the petitioner’s
    efforts to comply with state procedural requirements.           See 
    id. To establish
    prejudice, a petitioner must show the alleged errors
    worked to the petitioner’s actual and substantial disadvantage,
    infecting the entire trial with constitutional error.            See 
    id. Even if
    Davis has shown cause, Davis loses because he has not
    shown prejudice.    Davis has presented no evidence reflecting the
    content of Franzen’s testimony.          Absent evidence that Franzen’s
    testimony would have been favorable, Davis has not shown the
    failure to compel Franzen’s testimony actually disadvantaged him
    and infected his entire trial with error of a constitutional
    magnitude.     The mere possibility that Franzen’s testimony might
    create a conflict in the evidence is not enough to establish
    prejudice for the purpose of federal habeas review.            See 
    id. Without showing
    Franzen’s testimony would be favorable, Davis
    cannot prevail on the merits of his claim anyway, whether he
    characterizes it as a compulsory process claim or as a due process
    claim.   See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 
    480 U.S. 39
    , 56-57 (1987) (due
    process right violated when government prevents criminal defendant
    from discovering favorable evidence); United States v. Valenzuela-
    Bernal, 
    458 U.S. 858
    , 867 (1982) (right to compuslory process
    violated only when criminal defendant makes plausible showing that
    desired witness’s testimony would have been favorable to defense);
    -3-
    United States v. Mejia-Uribe, 
    75 F.3d 395
    , 399 (8th Cir.) (same),
    cert. denied, 
    117 S. Ct. 151
    (1996).
    Having considered and rejected all of Davis’s arguments, we
    affirm the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-3221

Filed Date: 5/6/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021