DeCastro v. Branker
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11199
4th Cir.2011Background
- Petitioner DeCastro was convicted in Johnston County, NC of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon; death sentences were imposed for both murders and a consecutive 40-year term for robbery.
- State Supreme Court affirmed most convictions and sentencing; US Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Petitioner raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims and asserted that the State presented conflicting evidence/argument against codefendants at sentencing.
- Petitioner sought federal habeas relief under AEDPA after state court proceedings, asserting due process/Eighth Amendment violations and trial/appeal ineffectiveness.
- District court granted summary judgment for Respondent Branker; Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA deferential review.
- Issue-focused review culminates in affirmation of habeas denial on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for trial strategy on presence at scene | DeCastro counsel strategy was deficient | Strategy was reasonable, not deficient | Strategy reasonable under Strickland; no prejudice |
| Failure to investigate/call Byrd’s confession about Goode | Non-investigation/absence of Byrd witness prejudiced | Counsel not ineffective; testimony known; decision tactical | No deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland |
| Failure to present George Goode’s motive evidence from letters | Letters show Goode motive; omission prejudicial | Letter limited relevance; independent Goode motive argued anyway | No prejudice; state court reasonably found no impact on result |
| Ineffective assistance regarding pond knife and other weapons | Defense failed to rebut pond-knife as sole weapon | Pathologist conceded pond-knife not necessarily weapon; other knives possible | No reasonable probability of different verdict |
| Bradshaw/Teague due process claim about inconsistent theories aiding sentencing | Inconsistent theories violated due process and Bradshaw applies | Bradshaw post-dates conviction; Teague bars relief; no due-process violation | Habeas relief denied; Bradshaw/Teague bars relief or lacks federal-law basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (deficient investigation in mitigating evidence must be prejudicial)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA deference and standard of review)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (finality and habeas review limitations)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2005) (prosecutorial inconsistency may affect sentencing under certain rules)
- Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2004) (finality and exhaustion for Teague analysis)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false evidence due process concerns)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1935) (due process and falsity concerns in prosecutions)
- Ozmint v. Dobbs, No official reporter in provided text; omitted (Not provided) (reference for prejudice standard in sentencing)