Maurice Hope v. Warden Cartledge
857 F.3d 518
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 1, 2008, a Bi‑Lo in Rock Hill, SC, was robbed by two masked gunmen; Hope was arrested with co‑conspirators Corey Spruell and Jarrod Heath. Spruell and Heath pleaded guilty and testified against Hope.
- State evidence: employee testimony describing a robber matching Hope’s build, surveillance video corroborating the robbery, a third‑party witness who saw a suspicious car with three occupants, Hope’s wallet found in Heath’s car trunk, and Hope’s flight to Detroit for four months after learning he was wanted.
- Defense: Hope and six alibi witnesses (roommates and girlfriend) testified Hope was at home between midnight and about 7 a.m. and could not have committed the robbery; counsel relied solely on alibi testimony but did not request the South Carolina alibi jury instruction.
- At trial the court repeatedly instructed the jury on presumption of innocence, burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and credibility, but did not give the specific alibi charge South Carolina law requires when an alibi is asserted. Hope was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 30 years.
- PCR court found counsel’s failure to request the alibi instruction was deficient but not prejudicial under Strickland; state court denials were affirmed and Hope sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed the petition; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to request a South Carolina alibi instruction caused Strickland prejudice | Hope: jurors likely misunderstood burden on alibi; instruction was required and its absence reasonably probable to change outcome | State: trial instructions repeatedly placed burden on prosecution; alibi evidence and credibility issues were before jury so omission was not prejudicial | No prejudice under Strickland; habeas petition denied (majority) |
| Whether the state PCR court unreasonably applied Strickland under AEDPA § 2254(d)(1) | Hope: PCR court unreasonably concluded lack of prejudice given weak state case and centrality of alibi | State: PCR decision reasonably applied Strickland given record support and existing instructions | PCR court’s application of Strickland was reasonable; § 2254 relief denied (majority) |
| Whether incomplete general instructions can substitute for a specific alibi instruction | Hope: general instructions did not explain that State must disprove alibi; jurors needed explicit guidance | State: general reasonable‑doubt and credibility charges made it inconceivable jury misunderstood burden | Majority: general instructions sufficient here; no reasonable probability of different result |
| Whether the evidentiary record was weak enough that omission of the alibi charge was likely decisive | Hope (dissent): case was weak—identification only by accomplices with credibility issues; video inconclusive; wallet and flight weak corroboration | State (majority): accomplice testimony corroborated by video, third‑party witness, wallet, and flight; credibility issues were jury questions | Majority: evidence was adequate and jury credibility finding not likely undermined by omitted alibi instruction; dissent disagrees |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference to state court applications of Strickland)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (prejudice in jury unanimity jurisdictions may require showing a reasonable probability at least one juror would decide differently)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (highly deferential standard under § 2254(d))
- Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (1978) (presumption of innocence instruction conveys additional cautions beyond reasonable‑doubt instruction)
- Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (1981) (trial judge must give requested instruction regarding a defendant’s silence)
- United States v. Luck, 611 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2010) (twofold Strickland inquiry for failure to request instruction)
- Lee v. Clarke, 781 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2015) (counsel’s failure to request critical instruction can satisfy Strickland prejudice when instruction is fundamental)