Kervinton Valentino v. Harold Clarke, 972 F.3d 560

Background

In May 2012 Valentino and Aaliyah Islam were in a hotel room; Islam was shot and robbed. Prosecution said Valentino attacked and shot her; Valentino claimed a third-party assailant assaulted both of them.
Investigators found bloody footprints, a bullet casing in the room, Islam’s wounds and x-rays showing a fragmented bullet; police later recovered a handgun from Valentino that forensics matched to the casing.
Valentino produced a bloody sock and boots; testing of the boot interior produced a mixed DNA profile (Valentino could not be excluded as the major contributor) and a positive blood indicator; the sock was never DNA-tested at trial.
At trial the case was essentially a credibility contest; the jury convicted Valentino of robbery, malicious wounding, and firearm offenses and he was sentenced to 20 years.
In state habeas the court found trial counsel’s failure to seek DNA testing of Valentino’s bloody sock was unreasonable but concluded there was no Strickland prejudice and denied relief; the Virginia courts declined further review.
On federal habeas the district court applied AEDPA deference to the state adjudication and denied relief and discovery; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Valentino's Argument	Commonwealth/State's Argument	Held
Whether the state post-conviction court adjudicated Valentino’s ineffective-assistance claims on the merits (triggering AEDPA review)	State court failed to allow further fact development re: forensic testing, so it did not adjudicate on the merits	The state court reached and ruled on Strickland’s prejudice element and therefore adjudicated the claim on the merits	Court held the state post-conviction decision was an adjudication on the merits; AEDPA applies
Whether counsel performed deficiently by not seeking forensic testing of toiletries and Islam’s clothing found in the room	Testing could have shown a third person and corroborated Valentino’s account; counsel was ineffective for not pursuing it	Counsel reasonably declined testing as it offered limited upside and risked undermining the defense theory that the investigation was incomplete	Court held the state court reasonably concluded counsel’s choice could be sound strategy and was not deficient
Whether counsel’s failure to obtain DNA testing of Valentino’s bloody sock was prejudicial under Strickland	Islam’s DNA on the sock would have proved the bullet passed through her before hitting Valentino, directly contradicting Islam and likely changing the verdict	Even if Islam’s DNA were on the sock, multiple innocent transfer mechanisms existed and the evidence would be cumulative in a credibility contest	Court held the state court reasonably found no Strickland prejudice; additional testing would not create a reasonable probability of a different result
Whether the federal court should permit further discovery/evidentiary hearing (including compelled forensic testing) on federal habeas	New testing evidence is material and the state record is incomplete, so discovery/hearing and testing should be allowed	State court adjudicated the claims on the merits; under AEDPA review federal court must defer and may deny discovery when the state decision was reasonable	Court held no entitlement to further discovery/hearing because the state adjudication was reasonable under §2254(d)

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deferential standard; state-court determinations unreasonable only in rare cases)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (§2254(d)(1) review limited to the state-court record)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (double deference when AEDPA and Strickland overlap)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (unreasonable factual findings standard under AEDPA)
Winston v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2010) (state-court truncation/materially incomplete record doctrine)
Winston v. Pearson, 683 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 2012) (further discussion of materially incomplete records in §2254 context)
Gordon v. Braxton, 780 F.3d 196 (4th Cir. 2015) (state court did not adjudicate claim on the merits where it ignored dispositive allegations)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bar on executing intellectually disabled defendants; referenced in Winston line of cases)