Perry Ellis Mayfield v. State ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00274-CR
Perry Ellis MAYFIELD,
Appellant
v.
The State /s
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas
Trial Court No. 11-07-10728-CR
Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 26, 2015
AFFIRMED
Perry Ellis Mayfield was convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Mayfield contends the State’s failure to reveal certain facts constituted a Brady1
violation which also rendered his trial counsel ineffective. Because we determine there was no
Brady violation, we overrule Mayfield’s issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
Mayfield pled not guilty to the murder of Ramiro Carrera. At trial, the State produced
1
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
04-14-00274-CR
evidence, through the testimony of several eyewitnesses, that Mayfield shot Carrera outside the
home of his brother, Carlos Carrera. Mayfield himself testified at trial and admitted to shooting
Ramiro Carrera, but claimed self-defense. The jury found Mayfield guilty of murder, thereby
rejecting his self-defense claim. In a motion for new trial, Mayfield claimed a Brady violation
because he first discovered at trial that Ramiro Gonzalez, by then the Chief of Police, had a close
personal relationship with the victim’s brother and his family, and was present at Carlos Carrera’s
home on the night of the shooting. Mayfield argued the State’s failure to disclose this material
impeachment evidence prevented his defense counsel from effectively representing him. Had his
counsel known these facts before the first day of trial, Mayfield argues, counsel would have sought
a change of venue, and appropriately tailored his voir dire and witness examination to those facts. 2
The State replied that Gonzalez was disclosed as a potential State’s witness before trial, and that
his presence at the home and relationship with the victim’s brother do not constitute Brady material
requiring disclosure to the defense.
At the motion for new trial hearing, Gonzalez testified and admitted being a close, personal
friend of the victim’s brother, Carlos Carrera, and his family, and acknowledged being present,
along with his wife and children, at Carlos’s home for the birthday party of Dolores Carrera,
Carlos’s wife. Gonzalez stated he left the residence about the time the victim, Ramiro Carrera,
arrived with a friend. Gonzalez testified that he received a call early the following morning
advising him of the shooting. As then Assistant Police Chief, Gonzalez was in charge of the
evidence vault and went to the police department to take custody of the gun and other physical
evidence in the case. Gonzalez also prepared a report, which was admitted into evidence.
Gonzalez indicated that he advised his boss, then Police Chief Eden Garcia, that he had been at
2
In an affidavit attached to the motion for new trial, Mayfield’s trial counsel stated that he would have taken those
actions.
-2-
04-14-00274-CR
the residence earlier that evening, but left before the shooting. Several officers involved in the
murder investigation were called to testify and acknowledged knowing that Gonzalez had been at
the Carrera residence on the night of the shooting. Mayfield urged that none of the police reports
reflected that fact, and argued that the State’s failure to disclose Gonzalez’s relationship with the
victim’s family and his presence at the Carrera home on the night of the shooting constituted a
Brady violation which denied him a fair trial. The motion for new trial was denied.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Mayfield argues the State’s failure to disclose the Brady information concerning
Ramiro Gonzalez deprived him of due process and denied his counsel of the opportunity to seek a
change of venue and to tailor his voir dire and cross-examination of the trial witnesses to those
facts, thereby causing him to render ineffective assistance of counsel.
Under Brady, the State has a mandatory duty to disclose potentially exculpatory
information to the defense. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (the prosecution violates
due process when it suppresses evidence in its possession favorable to an accused where the
evidence is material to either guilt or innocence); Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2000). The duty to disclose encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory
evidence. Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 27 (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985));
Johnston v. State, 917 S.W.2d 135, 138 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref’d) (Brady violation
occurs when a prosecutor fails to disclose evidence that may impeach the credibility of a State’s
witness where the witness’s credibility is material to the accused’s guilt or innocence). The scope
of the Brady rule extends beyond information in the possession of the individual prosecutor to
include information possessed by law enforcement agencies and personnel involved in the
investigation or other parts of the “prosecutorial team.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-81
(1999) (“In order to comply with Brady, therefore, ‘the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn
-3-
04-14-00274-CR
of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf . . ., including
the police.’”) (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995)). A Brady violation occurs if
a prosecutor fails to disclose evidence, which is favorable to the defendant, and which creates a
probability of a different outcome. Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 27; Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399, 404
(Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
In evaluating whether a Brady violation occurred, it is first necessary to determine whether
the withheld evidence was “material,” i.e., whether there is “a reasonable probability that, had the
evidence been disclosed to the defense, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”
Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 27 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682). A “reasonable probability” is a
“probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 27. Our
review of the record, including the motion for new trial hearing, reveals that Ramiro Gonzalez was
not present at the time of the shooting and he did not testify at trial. Gonzalez’s involvement in
the case was limited to his role as custodian of the police evidence vault, and he only logged in
evidence collected by other officers; he did not himself collect any evidence at the scene. As
noted, the crux of the case was not whether Mayfield was the shooter, but rather whether his actions
were justified by self-defense. There is nothing in the record to show a reasonable probability that
the outcome of Mayfield’s trial would have been different if the information about Gonzalez’s
relationship with the victim’s brother and his presence at the Carrera residence hours before the
shooting had been disclosed to Mayfield before trial. See id. We therefore conclude the withheld
information was not material, and that no Brady violation occurred.
With respect to Mayfield’s second issue, we similarly conclude that he has failed to
establish that he received ineffective assistance because he has not shown that the information
about Ramiro Gonzalez that the State withheld and/or his attorney failed to discover before trial
was material to his defense. Moreover, even assuming that Mayfield’s trial counsel was deficient
-4-
04-14-00274-CR
in some manner with respect to the information about Ramiro Gonzalez, Mayfield has not shown
that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
694 (1984) (the requisite proof of “prejudice” in an ineffective assistance claim is a showing that
“there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different”); see also Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152, 157 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2013) (noting that Strickland requires the defendant to establish both prongs of an
ineffective assistance claim, deficient performance and prejudice sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome, by a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail). Because failure
to establish either prong of an ineffective assistance claim is dispositive of the issue, Mayfield
cannot show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808,
813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
CONCLUSION
Having overruled both of Mayfield’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Do Not Publish
-5-