Jeremy Phillips v. Scott Lewis
683 F. App'x 207
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jeremy R. Phillips, a South Carolina prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for murder and arson, alleging a codefendant (Willis) committed the acts.
- Phillips argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a third-party guilt defense based on Willis’ alleged admissions and for failing to review physical evidence (a blood-soaked towel) with Phillips.
- The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted, that the physical-evidence claim was procedurally defaulted because Phillips did not fairly present it to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- The district court denied relief on the ineffective-assistance claims related to counsel’s handling of Willis’ admissions, accepting the state postconviction court’s credibility findings about counsel’s strategic decisions.
- Phillips sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge both the procedural-default ruling and the denial on ineffective assistance; the Fourth Circuit denied the COA and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default of physical-evidence claim | Phillips: certiorari petition raised counsel’s failure to discuss physical evidence, so claim was exhausted | State: certiorari petition did not fairly present the physical-evidence claim to the state’s highest court | Court: claim was not fairly presented and is procedurally defaulted; Phillips offered no cause/prejudice or miscarriage of justice |
| Whether counsel was deficient for not investigating/calling witnesses about Willis’ admissions | Phillips: counsel failed to research, investigate, and call witnesses who would have implicated Willis | State: counsel made a reasonable strategic choice after reviewing Willis’ statements and inmate letters and avoiding risks (e.g., Willis testifying) | Court: deference to state-court credibility findings; presumption of reasonable strategy not rebutted; no deficient performance |
| Whether counsel misunderstood hearsay/third-party guilt law | Phillips: counsel’s alleged misunderstanding made strategy unreasonable | State: counsel reasonably avoided calling Willis to prevent risk and considered legal issues and evidentiary weaknesses | Court: counsel’s approach was reasonable as a strategic decision given risks and conflicting statements by Willis |
| Prejudice under Strickland (would outcome differ) | Phillips: pursuing third-party guilt testimony would likely have produced a different verdict | State: trial evidence implicated Phillips, Willis’ admissions conflicted, and witness testimony supported conviction | Court: Phillips failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome; no prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (applicant must show jurists could debate district court’s assessment)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default, cause-and-prejudice and miscarriage-of-justice exceptions)
- Breard v. Pruett, 134 F.3d 615 (exhaustion/fair presentation requirement)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Cagle v. Branker, 520 F.3d 320 (deference to state-court credibility findings on habeas review)
- Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (federal habeas courts should not redetermine credibility of witnesses observed by state courts)
- Huffington v. Nuth, 140 F.3d 572 (Sixth Amendment does not always require counsel to interview potential witnesses)