Frederick v. Kyler , 100 F. App'x 872 ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-12-2004
Frederick v. Kyler
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1313
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Frederick v. Kyler" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 713.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/713
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 2004 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-1313
____________
EDWARD LEE FREDERICK,
Appellant
v.
KENNETH D. KYLER,
SUPERINTENDENT
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 00-cv-00378E)
District Court Judge: Hon. Sean J. McLaughlin
Argued: January 13, 2004
Before: ALITO, CHERTOFF, and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: May 12, 2004)
SHELLEY STARK
Federal Public Defender
1111 Renaissance Centre
1001 State Street
Erie, PA 16501
THOMAS W. PATTON (argued)
Asst. Federal Public Defender
1111 Renaissance Centre
1001 State Street
Erie, PA 16501
Counsel for Appellant
MICHAEL D. ALFIERI, ESQ. (argued)
Assistant District Attorney
McKean County District Attorney’s Office
McKean County Courthouse
Smethport, PA 16749
Counsel for Appellee
______________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
______________________
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order denying Edward Lee Frederick’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. In his petition, Frederick claimed, among other things, that he was
denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney allegedly denied
him the opportunity to testify in his own defense. We hold that the only issue that is
properly before us regarding Frederick’s failure to take the stand at his trial is the issue
whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, in violation of the Sixth
Amendment. Applying the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984),
we further hold that, even if trial counsel was ineffective, Frederick was not prejudiced,
and therefore Frederick’s ineffective assistance claim was properly denied.
-2-
I.
In January 1983, following a trial by jury, Frederick was convicted of the first-
degree murder of his girlfriend, Karen Meeker, and he is currently serving a sentence of
life imprisonment. The evidence at trial showed that Frederick shot Meeker in the
abdomen with a shotgun and left her by the side of a rural road where she was discovered
by a passing motorist. Meeker identified Frederick as the shooter to a passing motorist,
the ambulance crew, medical personnel, police, and family members. Meeker later died
during the course of surgery.
At Frederick’s trial, the Commonwealth called 29 witnesses, nine of whom had
engaged in conversations with Meeker between the time when Frederick shot her and her
death. In these conversations, Meeker identified Frederick as the person who had shot
her. The Commonwealth also presented evidence concerning the relationship between
Meeker and Frederick, evidence placing Frederick near the scene of the murder, and
evidence related to the murder weapon.
Frederick did not take the stand. Under Pennsylvania law, if Frederick had
testified, the Commonwealth could have sought to introduce proof of his prior homicide
conviction in rebuttal. See Commonwealth v. Bighum, 307 A.2d 255, 260 (Pa. Sup. Ct.
1973); Commonwealth v. Butler, 173 A.2d 468, 473-74 (1961). Some years earlier,
Frederick had pled guilty to the voluntary manslaughter of a former girlfriend. For this
offense, Frederick was sentenced to 6 ½ to 13 years of imprisonment. At Frederick’s trial
-3-
for the Meeker murder, his attorney told him not to take the stand. Frederick’s counsel
gave this advice to avoid having Frederick’s prior homicide conviction brought to the
attention of the jury.
In this habeas proceeding, Frederick argues that his attorney erred in failing to
advise him that a defendant has the right to testify even if the defendant’s attorney
disagrees with that tactic. Frederick contends that, if he had been so advised, he would
have taken the stand and would have testified that he was severely intoxicated when he
shot Meeker. This testimony, Frederick maintains, might have convinced the jury that he
was unable to form the specific intent needed for conviction of first-degree murder.
II.
Frederick’s habeas petition was referred to a magistrate judge for a report and
recommendation. Before turning to the merits of Frederick’s petition, the magistrate
judge concluded that Frederick’s failure to exhaust state remedies should be excused due
to inordinate delay (more than nine years) in Frederick’s Post-Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9541-46, proceeding, which was still pending. In addition,
because the Pennsylvania state courts had not adjudicated Frederick’s claims on the
merits, the magistrate judge concluded that the restrictive standards of review set out in
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) did not apply, and the magistrate judge instead applied “pre-AEDPA
independent judgment.” The magistrate concluded, however, that the only claim that
should be entertained relating to Frederick’s failure to testify was the claim that his
-4-
attorney rendered ineffective assistance, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The
magistrate noted that this was the only such claim that was presented in the PCRA
petition or in Frederick’s habeas petition. Although Frederick’s attorney in the habeas
proceeding attempted to raise a due process claim regarding trial counsel’s conduct, the
magistrate judge held that “Petitioner’s claim regarding his right to testify [would be]
reviewed as it was presented in his PCRA petition and his habeas petition; that is, as a
claim that his counsel was ineffective for not allowing him to testify at trial.” On the
merits, the magistrate judge held that Frederick’s right to the effective assistance of
counsel had not been violated under the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668 (1984). The District Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and denied Frederick’s petition. Our Court granted a certificate of
appealability “solely with respect to appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for
failing to allow him to testify and violated his right to testify by not advising him of his
right to testify and not allowing him to do so.”
Although our certificate of appealability was not strictly limited to the question
whether Frederick was denied the effective assistance of counsel, our review of the claim
that Frederick asserted in the state PCRA proceeding and in his federal habeas petition
convinces us that the only claim that is properly before us is the ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. We therefore restrict our discussion to that claim. We do not decide
whether a defendant in Frederick’s position can obtain habeas relief under any other
-5-
theory.
III.
The Sixth Amendment provides that a criminal defendant shall have the right to
“the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” As a general matter, a defendant alleging a
Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance violation must show (1) that counsel’s
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that it is
reasonably probable that, “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-91, 694.
In the present case, it is questionable whether Frederick can show that his
attorney’s performance was defective. If Frederick’s attorney merely advised him not to
testify, that tactical decision certainly would not have fallen below Strickland’s standard
of objective reasonableness. Frederick asserts that, if he had testified, he would have
explained to the jury that, while he did in fact shoot Meeker, he did so while he was drunk
and while they were fighting. Both of those facts had already been established by
testimony from a bartender who served Frederick and by Meeker’s statements to other
people before she died. Thus, Frederick’s testimony would not have brought new
information to the jury’s attention, and a competent trial attorney could have reasonably
concluded in any event that a defense of voluntary intoxication was not likely to lead to
an acquittal on the charge of first-degree murder. Moreover, had Frederick taken the
stand, the prosecution could have sought to introduce proof of his prior homicide
-6-
conviction at the guilt phase of his trial, with potentially disastrous consequences. Thus,
advising Frederick not to testify under the circumstances was not ineffective.
Frederick now claims, however, that his attorney did not simply advise him not to
testify but led him to believe that he could not do so. Frederick asserts that his attorney
did not inform him that he could have disregarded the attorney’s advice. Unfortunately,
Frederick’s trial attorney is now dead, and Frederick’s own testimony is apparently the
only available evidence regarding the discussions between Frederick and his attorney on
the question of Frederick’s testifying. It is noteworthy, however, that there is nothing in
the record indicating that Frederick informed his counsel that he disagreed with counsel’s
advice against testifying. Further, nothing in the record indicates that counsel took any
type of active role in stopping Frederick from testifying other than advising against it.
Frederick admitted that he never informed the trial court that he wished to testify.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether Frederick’s habeas petition could
properly be denied without an evidentiary hearing based on the first prong of Strickland
because we are satisfied that Frederick cannot satisfy the second prong, that is, he has
failed to demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland, 466 U.S.
at 694.
The testimony that Frederick now claims he would have given would not have
been compelling. It would have added little for the jury to hear Frederick testify that he
-7-
was intoxicated when the jury had heard other testimony concerning the fact that he had
been drinking. It would have added little for the jury to hear Frederick testify that he and
Meeker had argued when the jury heard testimony from other witnesses concerning their
argument. On the other hand, Frederick’s prospects would have been damaged if the jury
had heard at the guilt phase that he had previously been convicted of homicide. Thus,
Frederick cannot show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s alleged
errors the outcome of the trial would have been different.
For these reasons, we affirm the order of the District Court.
-8-